Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

North Wales Electric Power Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill [Lords,]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Cheltenham and Gloucester Joint Water Board, etc., Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Surrey County Council Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Winchester Corporation Bill [Lords,]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Foundling Hospital Bill [Lords,]

Read a Second time, and committed.

London County Council (Housing Site) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 11th June.

Mortlake Crematorium Bill [Lords,]

Read a Second time, and committed.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, at half-past Seven of the Clock.

Alexander Scott's Hospital Order Confirmation Bill [Lords,]

Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

SECRET POLICE.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the co-operation

between the German secret police and the German diplomatic service in this country, as proved in the Wesemann trial in Switzerland; and whether, as this is an offence against international law or comity, he will take diplomatic steps to secure that such activities will cease and the diplomatic persons involved will withdraw from this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 20th May, to which I have nothing to add.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COVENANT).

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the interpretation placed upon Article 16 contained in the collective note to Germany, initialled at Locarno 16th October, 1925, to the effect that each State member of the League is bound to resist any active aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military situation?

Mr. EDEN: In the passage of the collective note to which the hon. Member refers regarding the interpretation of Article 16 of the Covenant, the signatories stated that the obligations resulting from the said Article on the Members of the League must be understood to mean that each State member of the League is bound to co-operate loyally and effectively in support of the Covenant, and in resistance to any act of aggression to an extent which is compatible with its military situation and takes its geographical position into account. His Majesty's Government abide by that interpretation.

Mr. HENDERSON: Were the terms of this collective note before the meeting of the Council in October when Italy was declared the aggressor against Abyssinia, and, if so, why have not the terms been carried out?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The passage to which he refers could only involve military action if the Council had made a recommendation to that effect under paragraph (2) of Article 16. The Council did not make any such recommendation.

BRITISH DESPATCH

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any reply from the German Chancellor to his last communication containing proposals for the improvement of the international situation; and, if so, whether he can give it to the House?

Mr. EDEN: I assume that the communication to the German Chancellor which the hon. Member has in mind is that contained in the despatch to His Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin of 6th May, which was issued as a White Paper (Cmd. 5175). No reply has yet been received to the questions raised in that despatch.

Sir P. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation for the considerable delay which has taken place?

Exports of Coal from Germany to certain destinations during the years 1930–1935 and from 1st January-31st March, 1936.


Note. —As from 18th February, 1935, the Saar is included in the German Customs Union. For the purpose of comparison, exports from the Saar to Countries ocher than Germany are included and exports to the Saar from Germany are excluded throughout the following statement.


Destination.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.
January-March, 1936.


Europe.
1,000's Metric Tons.


France
9,880
8,920
8,189
7,762
7,836
5,525
1,396


 Belgium and luxemburg
5,065
4,985
4,062
3,451
3,515
3,403
851


Netherlands
6,300
5,988
4,690
4,794
5,676
5,385
1,236


Austria
466
509
499
359
279
396
69


 Czechoslovakia
1,088
1,078
1,002
879
890
1,018
255


Switzerland
970
870
879
891
845
885
184


 Italy and Possession
3,711
3,043
1,744
2,537
5,133
7,443
1,661


Sweden
316
395
393
348
295
427
93


Denmark
185
143
117
113
196
247
196


 align="center">South America.









Argentina
172
132
221
223
276
165
55


Brazil
181
234
258
336
322
540
174


Total Exports (including bunkers for foreign ships)
29,790
27,679
23,152
23,096
26,896
27,404
6,920


Particulars in respect of April, 1936, are not yet available.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

SMUGGLING.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consult the great Powers interested equally with us in the maintenance and integrity of the Imperial

Mr. EDEN: I would not like it to be thought that the delay was considerable at this stage. Our position is well known. We are getting on as quickly as we can, and I feel sure the German Government will do so.

COAL EXPORTS.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give a table showing the German exports of coal to the principal European and South American destinations for each of the last six years, together with those of the first four months of this year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I have been asked to reply. As the reply involves a statistical Table, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The Table is as follows:

Chinese Customs service, on which foreign loans are secured, to discuss the possibility of preventing the wholesale smuggling which is now in progress in Northern China?

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the


attention of the British Government has been called to the official report by the head of the Imperial Chinese Customs as to the growth of smuggling in Northern China; and whether he will state the nationals who are mainly carrying on this traffic, which is injurious to British trade and finance?

Sir WALTER SMILES: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the serious loss to the Chinese Customs revenues, he will negotiate with the Japanese Government to permit the Chinese Customs guards in North-East China to be armed, and also permit Chinese gunboats within the three-mile limit there?

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he has received reports as to the officers of the Chinese Customs service being prevented from carrying out their duties on trains running south out of Hopei; and under the authority of what Government these officers are hampered in the performance of their duties;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the report by the Inspector-General of Chinese Maritime Customs that unless the Customs preventive men were again free to re-arm normally, both afloat and ashore, and unless the railways were permitted to co-operate with the Customs by ceasing the transport of smuggled goods, there could be no improvement in the existing serious situation; and whether he has drawn the attention of the Japanese Government to this report and invited their co-operation?

Mr. HANNAH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he is aware that cruisers of the Chinese Customs revenue service within the three-mile limit of the coast of East Hopei have lately been interfered with in the performance of their Customs duties by officials purporting to act on the authority of the Japanese Government; and whether he will make representations on the subject to that Government;
(2) whether he is aware that Customs guards at the ports of East Hopei who formerly carried arms for the better performance of their duties have been forbidden this protection by officials purporting to act on the authority of the Japanese Government; and whether he will make inquiries into this matter?

Mr. MORGAN: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the damage to British and other trade by the extensive smuggling in Northern China, he can state whether the Imperial Chinese Customs service in the demilitarised zone are forbidden to carry arms, as is the case elsewhere; and whether the British Government will suggest to the Chinese and Japanese Governments the desirability of more effective action?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government have received from His Majesty's representative at Peking information regarding the report of the Inspector-General of Chinese Maritime Customs to which the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) alludes, and this is now under examination. The information at the disposal of His Majesty's Government tends to confirm that Customs officials at the shore stations in the demilitarised zone, as well as vessels operating in its coastal waters, are prevented by the Japanese military authorities from carrying arms. There is, moreover, reason to believe that difficulties of the nature mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Moreing) are experienced by Chinese Customs officials on trains in the demilitarised zone. The principal agents engaged in the smuggling traffic in North China are said to be Japanese and Koreans, although some Chinese may be taking part. The House is already aware of the concern with which His Majesty's Government view the situation caused by the growth of smuggling in North China and of the steps which have been taken to bring the need for more effective action to check this illicit traffic to the urgent notice of the Chinese and Japanese Governments. In particular, His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo, in his handling of this matter, has kept in close touch with the representatives of the other Governments interested. I understand that representations have also been made to the Japanese Government by the United States Ambassador. His Majesty's Government will continue to watch the situation with the closest attention, and will give special consideration to the points raised by my hon. Friends as well as to the report of the Inspector-General.

Mr. MOREING: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any other foreign Governments besides the United


States have made representations to Tokyo?

Mr. EDEN: I should like to have notice of the question. We have certainly been in communication with other foreign Governments, but whether they have yet acted I do not know.

Mr. MOREING: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has received any report from His Majesty's Consuls-General in Shanghai and Hankow as to the injurious effect on British trade in those centres and in the Yangtze Valley by the competition of goods smuggled into Northern China through East Hopei?

Captain EUAN WALLACE, (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The injury to British trade of this illicit traffic is known to be widespread, but it has not so far been possible to obtain any precise estimates of the effects of smuggling in the areas to which ray hon. Friend refers.

Mr. MOREING: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider communicating with the Consuls-General at Shanghai in an endeavour to get some information as to the extent of the damage that is being done?

Captain WALLACE: I am sure that His Majesty's Consular officers and the Commercial Counsellor to His Majesty's Embassy in China are fully alive to the gravity of the situation, and I am certain that we shall get reports from them as soon as they have some precise information to give.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the great damage being done to British trade in those parts, according to reports which have reached many hon. Members, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider having placed in the Library a copy of this report when it is received?

Captain WALLACE: When we get the report, we will consider that.

FOREIGN GARRISONS.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the strength of troops, military and naval, of the various Governments now quartered at Tientsin and Peiping?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government maintain one battalion in North China. The following are the approximate

strengths, as on 1st May, of the other foreign garrisons there: American, 1,380; French, 1,820;Italian, 380; Japanese, 2,000.

TANGKU TRUCE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government accepts the declaration of the East Hopei autonomous area as superseding the provisions of the Tangku truce between China and Japan?

Mr. EDEN: The question as to whether the declaration of East Hopei as an autonomous area conflicts with the terms of the Tangku truce is one primarily for the Chinese and Japanese Governments.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from the British chargé d'affaires at Peking any information as to the recognition or non-recognition by Japan of the terms of the Tangka truce respecting the policing of the demilitarised zone by the Chinese Government?

Mr. EDEN: According to my information the terms of the truce laid upon the Chinese authorities the duty of maintaining law and order in the demilitarised zone. I gather that, owing to division of effective authority, difficulties are being encountered in this connection, but I have no information that the terms of the truce are not recognised as binding by the Japanese Government.

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the refusal of the International Red Cross Committee to respond to the appeal for gas masks, made by the Ethiopian Red Cross, on 23rd March; and whether, in view of the terms of the Geneva Convention, he will make inquiries as to the reasons for such a request being refused, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that the International Red Cross Committee communicated to the League of Nations on 14th May a document in which, among. other matters, it was, stated that on 23rd March the Committee received a request from the Ethiopian Red Cross asking that the national Red Cross Socie-


ties should be requested to send large quantities of gas masks and manuals dealing with technical protection against asphyxiating, poisonous and other gases, I understand that in reply the Committee confined itself to communicating the Ethiopian request to the national Red Cross Societies, which in varying degrees had already responded to the appeals of the Ethiopian Red Cross; and it informed these societies that it had requested its delegation in Addis Ababa to ascertain how many masks the Ethiopian Red Cross required for the exclusive use of medical personnel or the patients under their care. On 27th April the Committee had not yet received a reply from its delegation on this point, nor had it received any positive answer from the national societies consulted; I am not aware whether it has received any replies since that date.

Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman let us have a full report on this matter?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government are not responsible for the International Red Cross. I know that the British Red Cross Society were ready and willing to help, and that in previous cases they have done so.

Mr. LEACH: My suggestion was not that the British Government were responsible for the International Red Cross, but whether it would not be of advantage to the House to have information as to how far they can go in the peculiar circumstances of a case like this?

Mr. EDEN: I will consider that matter. I was anxious that the House should not think that we have any power over the International Red Cross.

Mr. COCKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British delegates to the Stresa conference in April, 1935, were aware that on 17th March the Abyssinian Government had appealed to the League, stating that her independence was in peril, calling attention to Italy's military preparations and demanding full investigation by the League?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. It is correct that the Abyssinian Government appealed to the League on 17th March, 1935. The Council considered whether this appeal

should be put on the agenda for its special meeting on 15th April. But it was decided that, as the machinery of conciliation was already in operation, and as the special meeting had been called to consider specifically the European situation, the Abyssinian appeal should be placed on the agenda for the ordinary meeting four weeks later. The appeal was not discussed at Stresa, because the Stresa Conference was solely concerned with events arising out of the Anglo-French communiqué of 3rd February, 1935.

Mr. COCKS: Why then did the Foreign Secretary state in the House at the time of the Stresa Conference that the Abyssinia dispute was a minor frontier incident of the Wal-Wal, and that the wider aspects of the dispute did not then loom seriously on the horizon?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Member wishes to debate that point, I shall be happy to do so, but not at Question Time.

Mr. COCKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman justified, in order to defend two of his colleagues, in misleading the House?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Italian Government have made any request to His Majesty's Government for the withdrawal of the Legation guard, or any part thereof, from Addis Ababa; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. EDEN: The Italian Government have invited His Majesty's Government to consider whether, in the light of the occupation of Addis Ababa, it would not now be desirable to withdraw the reinforcement despatched last year to strengthen the British Legation guard and to provide adequate protection for British subjects in the event of local emergency. As the situation in Addis Ababa is still far from stable, the Italian Government have been informed that the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. HENDERSON: In view of the fact that British subjects are still being placed in jeopardy, will the right hon. Gentleman bear these circumstances in mind before coming to a decision?

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what purposes are being served by the retention of His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa; and if, in view of the delicacy of his situation there and the difficulties likely to arise for him owing to the Italian forces and authorities being in occupation of Ethiopia, the advisability of his recall will be taken into immediate consideration?

Mr. EDEN: There is no immediate intention of withdrawing His Majesty's Legation at Addis Ababa, but His Majesty's Minister will in all probability shortly be returning to England on leave which has long been due to him.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Does that mean that His Majesty's Government regard the Legation at Addis Ababa as enjoying full diplomatic status?

Mr. EDEN: I think my answer speaks for itself.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to withdraw the Sikh guard from the British Legation at Addis Ababa; if the precincts of the legation or of any of His Majesty's Consulates have been entered by Italian troops; and what instructions have been sent to Sir Sidney Barton as regards his codes and archives in view of the fact that the declaration of the Italian Government that foreign legations in Ethiopia no longer enjoy diplomatic status or extra territorial rights exposes such legations to the possibility of raid and search?

Mr. EDEN: As regards the first part of the question, the Italian Government have invited His Majesty's Government to consider whether, in the light of the occupation of Addis Ababa, it would not now be desirable to withdraw the reinforcement despatched last year to strengthen the British Legation guard and to provide adequate protection for British subjects in the event of local emergency. As the situation in Addis Ababa is still far from stable, the Italian Government have been informed that the matter is still under consideration. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer to the answer given to a similar question

by the hon. and gallant Member on 22nd May, to which I have nothing to add.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Would not a lot of these difficulties be eased by a clear declaration that we do regard the legation at Addis Ababa as enjoying full diplomatic status?

Mr. COCKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any further information regarding the case of Mr. Bonner, the British subject who was arrested by the Italians at Dire Dawa?

Mr. EDEN: As my Noble Friend informed the House On Thursday last, as soon as Press reports of Mr. Bonner's arrest reached London, a telegram was sent to His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa asking him to ascertain the facts. When on Saturday definite information reached me that Mr. Bonner was under arrest, His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome lost no time in taking up this case, on instructions from His Majesty's Government, with the Italian Government. I am happy to be able to state that I have now received a telegram from His Majesty's Consul at Harar stating that Mr. Bonner has now been freed, and that he was due to leave for the coast on the evening of 23rd May. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed account of this case.

Mr. COCKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the Italian authorities for an apology for this illegal arrest of a British subject?

Mr. EDEN: I think the hon. Gentleman had better read the detailed statement before he comes to any conclusion.

Mr. MUFF: Has this unfortunate gentleman been able to receive adequate medical attention?

Mr. EDEN: Yes; I am happy to say that has been done.
Following is the statement referred to:
A telegram was serif by His Majesty's Consul at Harar to His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa on 22nd May and received in London from Sir Sidney Barton on 24th May. In this telegram His Majesty's Consul stated that Mr. Bunner was now free and was due to leave with the rest of the British Ambulance by the next train, on the 23rd May evening or


Sunday morning. An order had been made for the value of the money seized to be returned to him in Lira. Meanwhile through the kind assistance of the French Consulate and the French doctors Renault and Martin, Mr. Bunner had started a series of anti-rabies injections with good serum, and Dr. Empey, the head of the British Ambulance, was being given a sufficient quantity of serum to complete the course. The sequence of events appears to have been as follows:—Mr. Bunner had been denounced by one Gabre Christos, who is said to be of Turkish birth but Ethiopian by naturalisation, as Captain Rudolph Brunner, an Austrian formerly employed with the Ethiopian military forces in the Ogaden. This charge was supported by an Ethiopian boy aged about 12 years, formerly a body servant to Vehip Pasha. In view of the above evidence, the Italian authorities interrogated Mr. Banner during the evening of 17th May, and wishing to continue interrogation the following day, kept him in custody that night in a room which he described as an incinerator. Hearing that he might be shot before the Italian authorities discovered their mistake he escaped during the night. This seemed to the Italian authorities to confirm his guilt. He was re-arrested on the evening of 20th May. When His Majesty's Consul saw him on the 21st he looked none the worse for his adventure. His Majesty's Consul secured his immediate release on, his personal parole that he would produce him when required. He then joined the rest of the Ambulance who had decided to remain until the affair was settled. This satisfactory outcome which had been achieved by vigorous representations to the Italian authorities was confirmed by telegram to Dire Dawa from General Fuizzi commanding in Harar.
Difficulties were accentuated by Mr. Banner's ignorance of any language but English, the absence of his passport, which had gone on to Jibuti, the military character of his rank and of the wording of the instructions found on him from his superiors in the Ambulance, and finally by his attempted escape. Undoubtedly Mr. Banner should not have been held under close arrest on the night of the 17th after His Majesty's Consul had once stood sponsor for him. But I understand that this was an act of inferior officials misled by statements of lying

witnesses and by the production of the visiting card of Rudolph Brunner inscribed as captain of the Ethiopian Army which Gabre Christos alleged Mr. Banner had given him.

Mr. COCKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the disappearance of a British diplomatic bag on the Addis Ababa-Jibuti railway?

Mr. EDEN: Inquiries are being made by Sir Sidney Barton and by the British Vice-Consul at Jibuti, and I am awaiting their report. I understand that the bag in question was a non-confidential postal packet.

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the use by the Italian invaders of Ethiopia of the railway under French control between Jibuti and Addis Ababa?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that the French Government have decided that no troops or munitions of war will be transported from Jibuti or anywhere in French territory. I am further advised that the French Government regard the transport of supplies of food, clothing, etc., from Jibuti to Addis Ababa as a commercial transaction, and that they do not propose to vary the practice followed hitherto in this respect. In the case of consignments of such stores destined for the Italian military authorities, the ordinary commercial freight rates will be payable.

ANTI-BRITISH BROADCASTS (ITALIAN STATIONS).

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the anti-English propaganda from the Italian radio stations, which has been wirelessed weekly in the local languages to the inhabitants of India and Palestine; and whether he will make representations to the Italian Government?

Mr. EDEN: The position referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend is being carefully watched and representations have been recently made to the Italian Government with regard to anti-British broadcasts from Italian stations. I am


not, however, at present in a position to add anything material to the replies which have been given to previous questions of a similar nature.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can we broadcast to Ethiopia and in the Ethiopian language?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot; I do not know whether the hon. Member can.

COLONEL LOPEZ.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that the latest interrogation of Henry Lawrence, alias Lopez, alias Mezler, establishes the closeness of the relations of this man with the Italian Embassy, he will inform the Italian Government that the Italian military attaché to the Italian Ambassador in London is no longer persona grata here?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 20th May, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the precise identity of Colonel Lopez; and whether he can make any further statement on his activities?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I am informed that he is identical with Henry Lawrence Bernstein, born in Australia in 1872, who assumed the name of Henry Lawrence some considerable time ago. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. HENDERSON: Has this person any connection with the Chiddingfold conspiracy?

MANCHURIA AND ABYSSINIA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Earl WINTERTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what manner, since His Majesty's Government do not recognise the de facto governments of Manchukuo and Abyssinia, respectively, any grievances

which may arise of British subjects in those countries against the governments in question are dealt by the British diplomatic and consular authorities in the two countries?

Mr. EDEN: In Manchuria such problems are dealt with between His Majesty's consular officers and the local authorities. In Abyssinia, as the Prime Minister indicated in his reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) on 13th May, such matters are taken up by His Majesty's Minister at Addis Ababa with the officer commanding the Italian forces, as the authority in military occupation of Addis Ababa. His Majesty's Consul at Harar similarly communicates with the local military authorities on such matters.

Mr. MAXTON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the attitude of the shadow cabinet on these matters?

TITHE BILL.

Mr. LAMBERT: asked the Minister of Agriculture what amount per £100 of tithe rentcharge is necessary to effect redemption in 60 years by the provisions of the Tithe Bill; and what would be the annual amount payable per £100 if no redemption provisions were adopted?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I presume my right hon. Friend has in mind tithe rentcharge arising out of agricultural land. The figures are £91 11s. 2d. and £76 7s. 6d. respectively. The latter figure, however, depends on certain assumptions, but as these are detailed and involve a number of calculations, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the information:
In order to answer the last part of the question, it has to be assumed, first, that the Exchequer contribution to the scheme would be maintained at the figure of £685,000 per annum for 60 years; secondly, that the compensation would be paid to the rating authorities on the basis set out in the Bill, that is, payments equal to the present value of a 60-year annuity of £600,000; thirdly, that the additional lump sum payment of £2,000,000 to the Church authorities


represented by a 60-year annuity of £72,266 would be met out of the Exchequer contribution; and, fourthly, that the balance of the Exchequer contribution—£12,734 for 60 years—would be available towards the cost of collection and administration of the scheme. On these assumptions the amount which would be required to be paid per £100 tithe rentcharge (par value) by tithe-payers in the case of agricultural land if no provision were made to redeem the stock issued as compensation to tithe-owners is estimated at approximately £76 7s. 6d.

MILK (GOVERNMENT POLICY).

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, during the first four months of this year, the prices of New Zealand butter and cheese have averaged 12 per cent. more than those of the same period of last year, whereas the average price for milk paid during the same period by the National Milk Pool to the home farmer was a halfpenny a gallon less than a year ago; and whether he will, in formulating a long-term policy for agriculture, give special attention to means of increasing the consumption of liquid milk in preference to placing restrictions upon butter and cheese from the oversea Dominions?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware of the facts referred to and shall certainly keep the hon. Member's suggestion in mind in any consideration of long-term policy. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that no restrictions are or have been placed upon imports of butter and cheese from the oversea Dominions, and in the statement I made on 25th July last on the subject of milk policy I indicated how, in the Government's view, assistance could best be afforded to the home industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

INSURED PARCEL (DAMAGE).

Mr. DENVILLE: asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a Mrs. Harger, a visitor from America to this country, who received an insured parcel from America which had been examined by

the customs officials and the contents of which had been rendered useless; whether, in the circumstances, compensation will be paid to her for the said damage; and whether he is aware that this matter has been before his office for six months?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): Instructions have been given to pay compensation in this case. I am sorry for the delay but there was no evidence that the damage occurred during Customs examination here and the United States Post Office had to he consulted.

EMERGENCY TELEPHONE CALLS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Postmaster-General whether he can now give any further information as to the early introduction of emergency telephone calls; and will he give particulars and say when it is proposed to introduce same?

Major TRYON: As indicated in the reply given on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) some months must elapse before the necessary apparatus can be installed; but the work is now in hand and will be proceeded with as expeditiously as practicable.

Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman propose to adopt the suggestion of the committee which was appointed to deal with this subject?

Major TRYON: We are making progress with this matter, but I do not want to give out the numbers prematurely, because people might start using them before the new mechanism is ready.

PLANNING SCHEME, AVEBURY.

Sir PERCY HURD: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has considered the representations that under the proposed Avebury preservation scheme the scheduling of land is so planned as to deprive owners of much of its present and potential value and infringe their inherent freehold rights; and whether means can be taken to alleviate their position?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The object of this planning scheme, which has been framed by the local planning authority in consultation with my Department, is


the protection of the surroundings of Avebury, one of, if not the most important, prehistoric monuments in Great Britain. The scheme, to which I, personally, attach great importance, has been most carefully drawn up so as to interfere as little as possible with the existing user of land, and landowners can, of course, avail themselves of the provisions made for their protection under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1932.

Sir P. HURD: What opportunity will local people have to express and to get some reply to their grievances?

Mr. ORMSBY-G0RE: The procedure is well known. If an owner objects to the scheme, the Minister of Health holds an inquiry. If a claim for compensation cannot be settled amicably, the owner will go to an official arbitrator. That is the procedure clearly laid down in the Act.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SAFETY PRECAUTIONS).

Mr. DAY: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether any recent estimate has been taken to ascertain how long it would take to clear the Chamber and galleries of the House of Commons in the event of fire, or air raid by a hostile Power, while the House is sitting; and whether he is satisfied that the exits of the galleries are sufficient?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No estimate has been made for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member, nor do I think it would be possible to arrive at one even by a series of practical experiments, as so much would depend on the exact place where a possible fire might break out. Generally speaking, I understand that, assuming the Chamber and galleries are both full, it would not take more than five minutes to empty them after a warning announcement, assuming that a reasonable standard of discipline is maintained.

Mr. DAY: Is the Minister aware that the stairways down from the galleries are particularly dangerous for making an exit?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Would it make any difference whether the alarm took place by day or by night?

Mr. GALLACHER: How long would it take to clear out the present Cabinet to make way for the week-end Cabinet?

Mr. SANDYS: Does the Minister not consider that if the London County Council were to stop obstructing the defence services of London, the hon. Member would not need to be so alarmed?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FOREIGN MATCHES.

Mr. AMMON: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the issue of boxes of Union Jack matches, made in Japan, for the use of the staffs in telephone exchanges and branch post offices; and whether such matches were purchased by the Post Office or otherwise supplied?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: About 400 gross boxes of Japanese matches were confiscated by the Customs authorities and were handed over by them to my Department instead of being destroyed. They were issued to various Government Departments, including the Post Office, in response to requisitions. British matches only are purchased by my Department for official use.

Mr. AMMON: Is this not an unusual procedure? Is it the practice to distribute to Government Departments commodities which have been seized by the Customs authorities?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, I understand it is. I agree that this is the first case of which I have heard, but I understand it is a long-established practice. I cannot answer for the Customs authorities, and any further questions on that aspect of the matter should be put to the Treasury.

Mr. LEACH: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any reports on those Japanese matches from those who have used them?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I had a box given to me, and they were certainly very bad matches.

CIVIL SERVANTS (RETIREMENT).

Mr. JOEL: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any objection and, if so, of what nature, to civil servants retiring voluntarily


between the age of 55 years and the date of compulsory retirement on proportionate pensions?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Yes, Sir. An arrangement of the nature suggested would be contrary to the Superannuation Acts and would, moreover, clearly be against the interests of the State. The Royal Commission on the Civil Service which reported in 1931 recommended no change in the provisions of the Superannuation Acts which govern this matter—see Chapter XVI of their report, Command Paper No. 3909.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS.

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour whether the new regulations for unemployment assistance will be published before the House rises for the Whitsuntide Recess?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No, Sir.

Mr. BATEY: Can the Parliamentary Secretary state whether it is the intention of the Ministry to make any statement before the House rises for Whitsuntide as to the reason for not introducing the Regulations?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I understand that a question on the subject is to be answered by the Prime Minister to-morrow.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: If no Regulations are to be issued, what is the good of keeping the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Nobody has said that no Regulations are to be issued.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department is not capable of coping with the problem, will he not ask assistance from some of the other Members of the Cabinet?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: We are capable.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the House is to have any information on these Regulations before the Whitsuntide Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): A question is to be put to me to-morrow when I shall answer it.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not desirable to have an answer to the question to-day? Why should we have all this shocking delay in connection with these Regulations? Is the Prime Minister afraid to submit the Regulations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered the question of the Leader of the Opposition, and I imagine that he does not desire anyone else to ask supplementary questions on it.

Mr. BATEY: I give notice that at the end of questions I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. BATEY: rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The failure of the Minister of Labour to bring before the House the new Regulations for unemployment assistance."
I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the question which I put to-day and the answer that was given. The answer means that it is not the intention of the Minister of Labour to publish the new Regulations before the House rises for the Whitsuntide Recess, and any answer which the Prime Minister will give to-morrow, if he takes the usual course, will be merely to refer the hon. Member who asks the question to the answer given to-day. The Minister has definitely said to-day that these Regulations are not to be published before the Whitsuntide Recess. We ought to have had the Regulations last year. There is no justification for their being put off week after week and month after month. I sincerely ask that you should give us permission to move the Adjournment of the House in order that we may be able to get to know the Government's reason for not introducing these new Regulations.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The failure of the Minister of Labour to bring before this House the


new Regulations for Unemployment Assistance." That Motion does not appear to me to carry out any of the rules set out in Standing Order No. 8 as regards the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, and therefore I cannot grant leave to move it.

Mr. BATEY: But there can be no question that this is a matter of urgent public importance. There can be no argument about that. Besides, unless the House can be given this opportunity when can the House debate the failure of the Government to introduce these new Regulations? We have had the Adjournment of the House on occasions in the past, and I submit that we are entitled on a matter like this to have the Adjournment of the House in order that we may debate the question.

Mr. THURTLE: Before you reply, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you, with great respect, to indicate to the House whether it is on the ground that the matter is not definite that you are unable to accept the Motion, or is it that the matter is not of urgent importance?

Mr. SPEAKER: It certainly is not definite, and the question is going to be answered to-morrow.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask your guidance on this point, Mr. Speaker? Have hon. Members on these and other benches who are concerned in this matter no redress against the constant and vexatious delays, for which the Government are responsible, in submitting these Regulations to the House? Have we not had several promises in recent months from the Minister of Labour, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and from the Prime Minister himself that these Regulations would shortly come before the House, and in view of these constant delays and the friction which is resulting in consequence, are we not entitled to ask for some means of raising this issue on the Floor of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are several means by which the question can be raised in the House.

Mr. SHINWELL: We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary to-day

that the Regulations are not to be presented to the House before the Whitsuntide Recess, and we have no guarantee from the Prime Minister when they will come before the House. is it not the case, therefore, that there are no means of raising the matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: The question can be raised on the Adjournment of the House; but in regard to this particular Motion I can only carry out the Standing Orders.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. HARDIE: Ever since this House was constituted at the last election there have been definite periods of promise and the last promise was that the Regulations were to be submitted in the spring—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot debate that now.

Earl WINTERTON: Is not the true constitutional procedure for hon. and right hon. Members opposite who think that they have a legitimate grievance—and I express no opinion upon that—to put down a Vote of Censure?

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand from the answer which was given to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend that the only reason for refusing to give leave to move the Adjournment is that the Prime Minister is going to answer a question to-morrow?

Mr. SPEAKER: There are several reasons. I have given them once and I cannot give them again.

AUSTRALIA (IMMIGRANTS).

Mr. STOREY: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the number of immigrants into Australia from Southern European countries during 1935, and which were the countries from which they mainly came?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Marquess of Hartington): The official statistics of the Commonwealth Government show that the number of immigrants into Australia from Southern European countries during 1935 was 2,511. Of these, 1,974 were Italians, 460 Greeks aid 311 Jugoslavs.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

45. Captain GUNSTON: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to the House an amendment to Standing Order No. 7 (Questions) to provide some limit on the number of oral questions which may be asked by any Member in one Parliamentary week?

The PRIME MINISTER: The number of oral questions which Members may ask is limited not by Standing Order but by an arrangement made by Mr. Speaker in 1920 with the general concurrence of the House. If there is any desire for an alteration in the present arrangement, Mr. Speaker may be willing to ascertain the views of the House.

Captain GUNSTON: While thanking the Prime Minister for his answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that considerable resentment is felt by a large section of the House at the fact that, under present conditions, it is possible for an hon. Member to ask the maximum number of inane questions, day by day?

Mr. THURTLE: If he is drawing the attention of Mr. Speaker to this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman also draw attention to the desirability of asking Ministers to give more informative answers than are given at present?

Mr. DAY: May I ask the Prime Minister to suggest to his followers, that they ought not to table questions asking for statistical information which they can easily obtain in the Library and from official records?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Would it not be possible to have more supplementary questions, if the questions on the Order Paper were fewer in number; and would not that meet with the desires of many people who wish to thresh out matters more thoroughly than is possible at present?

Mr. DAVIDSON: Is this not a question that could be decided day by day?

DEFENCE FORCES (RECRUITING).

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Prime Minister the number of applicants for enlistment in the Army, Navy, and Air Force in England, Scotland, and Wales, respectively, who have been rejected on the ground of physical unfitness during

the last 12 months; and how many of the intending recruits were unemployed at the date of their application for enlistment

The PRIME MINISTER: As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose, with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the answer:
The number of applicants from 1st April, 1935, to 31st March, 1936, who have been rejected on the grounds of physical unfitness are:



Army.
Navy.


England
…
…
…
18,765
18,212


Scotland
…
…
…
3,654
2,709


Wales
…
…
…
1,442
1,095



23,861
22,016


Similar figures for the Royal Air Force are not available for the three countries separately, but the total number of such rejections was: 8,558, of whom 526 were examined in Belfast. As regards the last part of the question, I regret that the information is not available.

BUDGET PROPOSALS (INQUIRY TRIBUNAL'S REPORT).

Earl WINTERTON: asked the Prime Minister whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the report of the Budget Inquiry Tribunal after it has been published as a Command Paper?

The PRIME MINISTER: If there is a general desire for such a discussion after the publication of the report, arrangements will, of course, be made.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in every precedent, wherever there has been a judicial inquiry into matters which directly or indirectly affect the conduct of Members of this House as Members of this House, there has invariably been a discussion, whether the charge has been proved or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: Whether that be so or not does not affect my reply.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a date for a discussion of this report, as, whatever the


report may contain, it is quite clear that matters of public importance are raised thereby?

SUEZ CANAL.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the recent inability of the League of Nations to prevent the use of the Suez Canal by the aggressor for warlike purposes, he will recommend the appointment of a commission to consider how this international highway may be secured from such employment in future?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that the adoption of my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion would achieve any useful purpose.

SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is proposed to increase the total sum granted to research covering a period of years?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The total sum provided for industrial, agricultural, and medical research in the Estimates now before Parliament for the current financial year is £1,252,989, as compared with £1,138,708 voted for the year 1935—an increase of approximately 10 per cent. I am unable to forecast the amounts to be included in the Estimates for future years; but, so far as I am concerned, the requirements in the various branches of research will be considered from time to time as heretofore by the Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Medical Research Council or the Agricultural Research Council, as the case may be, and financial provision made after consideration of their recommendations.

Mr. CHORLTON: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask if it is quite definite that there is to be no provision made for five years ahead—no five-year plan?

Mr. MacDONALD: I think my hon. Friend knows enough of the Parliamentary practice to know that that is quite impossible.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the sums confined to the question of medical research as compared with the sums confined to the question of armaments?

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is proposed to encourage in future a more active policy in research by firms and industries which do not normally pursue this policy by canvassing them specially with the offer of assistance by grants on certain conditions?

Mr. R. MacDONALD: The Government scheme for co-operative research by means of research associations is already widely known throughout the industrial community, and repeated allusions to its operations and development are to be found in the daily and technical Press. In view of these facts I do not, think any additional canvassing of industry such as my hon. Friend suggests would serve any useful purpose, but the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is ready at all times to discuss with responsible leaders of industry any schemes for cooperative research in which the Department might share, and takes every opportunity which arises of initiating such discussion.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: What steps are taken by the National Physical Laboratory to convey to interested firms the results of their experiments in new fields?

Mr. MacDONALD: The result of these experiments is communicated in accordance with circumstances. It is quite impossible to lay down a regular rule, because conditions vary so much, but I should be very much surprised if my hon. and gallant Friend could bring to my notice the case of an industrial firm of any importance that is unaware of the results of the National Physical Laboratory's research relating to its own industry.

Captain EVANS: While that may be true so far as large firms are concerned, is it not somewhat difficult for small firms, who are as interested as others in these experiments, to obtain all the information necessary?

Mr. MacDONALD: I shall certainly make inquiries, and if the methods can


be improved to increase the knowledge of the smaller firms, I shall be delighted to make the change.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FASCIST MEETING, EDINBURGH.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make any statement regarding the disturbances arising out of the Fascist meeting in the Usher Hall, Edinburgh, on Friday, 15th May?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am informed that during the meeting referred to disturbances occurred in the hall and that a number of persons, after repeated warnings, were forcibly ejected by the stewards. Five persons were handed over to the police, and the question as to whether proceedings should be taken against them for alleged offences is now being investigated. Compaints of assault on the part of stewards were made to the police, and three stewards were subsequently identified as having taken part in alleged assaults. The question of taking proceedings against these stewards and also against one other prominent Fascist, who was alleged to have committed an assault, is under investigation. There was very little trouble amongst the large crowd which assembled in the vicinity of the hall, but during the evening outside the hall, five men and one woman were arrested and certain charges made against them. At the Sheriff Court on Tuesday, the 19th instant, three of the men pled guilty. One was sentenced to 30 days' imprisonment, and two were each sentenced to pay a fine of £2 with the alternative of 20 days' imprisonment. Two pled not guilty and were released on bail, and trial was fixed for the 6th July, 1936. In the case of the woman, the charge was withdrawn because of her mental condition.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: While thanking the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his reply, may we have an assurance in regard to these disorderly scenes which are frequently associated with meetings of this body, that if there are further meetings in Scotland he will see that there are people who are able to supply adequate evidence with regard

to the particular quarter from which the violence originates?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As I have explained, the matter is under inquiry at the present time, and if sufficient evidence is forthcoming, the authorities will take action. With regard to the question which the hon. Member raises, I will bear it in mind, but there is no evidence to show that due precautions on this occasion were not in fact taken.

Mr. MESSER: Do the Government not think it advisable to introduce legislation making it illegal for political parties to wear uniforms?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is a matter of indifference to the Crown authorities what colour of shirt a breaker of the law wears. If evidence is forthcoming that the law has been broken, proper action will be taken.

DESTRUCTION OF FISH.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the wholesale destruction of fish a few days ago at Lerwick, Shetland Isles, owing to an unfavourable market; and will he consider the introduction of a scheme, in association with suitable local authorities, whereby the wastage of food resources shall be avoided?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am informed that on 15th May a quantity of herring were thrown back into the sea at Lerwick, owing to glutting of the market. The Herring Industry Board view such occurrences with concern, and my right hon. Friend shares that feeling. The incident occurred before the main fishing season started, and the board's information is that the herring were unsuitable for home consumption. The measures taken by the board, including regulation of fishing, commencement of curing, and general advertising, will tend to diminish the risk of glut in the main season. The problem of organising special measures for the disposal of occasional gluts in areas of heavy unemployment is a difficult one, but the board are giving it further consideration in consultation with the Commissioners for the Special Areas and the Food Council.

Mr. LEACH: In view of the way in which these frequent occurrences shock the public conscience and, I am sure,


shock his own conscience, too, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman undertake to take some measures, with the Cabinet, of a drastic kind in order to put a stop to such folly?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As I explained in my answer, the question of organising special measures is under consideration, but it is a difficult problem.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say why these boats are allowed to go to sea to catch quite immature fish that is not fit for food?

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that it is not only at Lerwick that this proceeding has taken place, but that more recently at Fraserburgh, a third of a million first-class herring have been thrown back into the sea; and will the Secretary of State undertake to discuss with his colleagues in the Government the taking of immediate steps to stop this destruction of food and these gluts of food in the midst of semi-starvation?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I can only properly be expected to answer questions on the Paper, and the right hon. Gentleman has raised a quite separate case. I have informed the House that the Herring Industry Board and my right hon. Friend view such occurrences with concern, and that the matter is under their consideration.

JAPANESE SILK.

Mr. REMER: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the Japanese have christened a village in Japan "Macclesfield," in order to enable them to sell their silk goods as Macclesfield silk; and whether he will take the appropriate steps to prevent these goods being sold in the home market marked in this way;
(2) whether he is aware that the Japanese have christened a village in Japan "Macclesfield," in order to sell their silk goods as Macclesfield silk; and whether he will make representations to the Japanese Government upon this matter;
(3) whether he is aware that the Japanese have christened a village in

Japan "Macclesfield." in order to sell their silk goods as Macclesfield silk; and whether he will take the appropriate steps to prevent this deception when these goods are sold in the colonial markets?

Dr. BURGIN: I have seen a Press report that a village in Japan has been named "Macclesfield," and I am making inquiries. As regards the rest of the questions, I am advised that there would be grounds for proceedings under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, if the description "Macclesfield Silk" were applied to imported goods at the time of sale in this country Similar legislation is in force in most of the Colonies.

Mr. SORENSEN: Can the hon. Member say whether, in fact. they christen at all in Japan?

SCHOOL CHILDREN (ROAD SAFETY).

56. Captain PLUGGE: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will represent to the different education authorities, especially in London, the desirability of opening all school playing grounds during the summer holidays to enable children to play there instead of in the streets, with the object of reducing the number of accidents from traffic?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Recommendation 25 of the recently published report of the Inter-departmental Committee on Road Safety among School Children deals with this question. Copies of this report have been distributed to all local education authorities, together with a circular commending it to their consideration. For the present, I do not think that any further action on my part is required.

POLICE (APPEALS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Home Secretary the number of appeals in cases of officers of the Metropolitan and provincial police, respectively, dismissed or required to resign since the Police Appeals Act, 1927; and the number, specifying ranks, in which an oral hearing was accorded and, in those cases, whether legal aid was employed and at whose cost?

Mr. LLOYD: There have been 53 appeals under the Police Appeals Act, 1927, from members of the Metropolitan police force, one from the City of London force and 63 from county and borough forces. Inquiries have been held in the cases of one chief constable, one superintendent, four sergeants and 16 constables. Legal aid has never been refused and was employed in 20 out of those 22 cases. In 14 cases the cost of legal aid was borne by the appellant and in the other six cases it was provided at the cost of the Police Fund.

Mr. DAY: Is there any objection to allowing these officers to subscribe to a defence fund?

INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report in connection with the fatal accident to Arthur William Blyth, of Clapton, who was buried alive in a trench at Downs Park Road, Hackney; whether he can state the depth of the trench; and whether it was properly timbered?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend is making inquiry as to this case, and will communicate with the hon. Member?

Mr. THORNE: asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the factory inspector in connection with the fatal accident to Harry Edwin Head, of Greenwich, who was employed by a private company of aeroplane dismantlers of West Norwood; and whether he can state the cause of the accident?

Mr. LLOYD: I understand that Head was one of the directors of the company and that the accident occurred when he was dismantling a pneumatic shock absorber without having released the pressure valve. Action to prevent the recurrence of such an accident is under consideration.

Mr. THORNE: asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the factory inspector in connection with the death of one man and injuries to two others from the explosion of an oxygen cylinder at the British Oxygen Works, Newcastle-on-Tyne; and whether he can state the cause of the accident?

Mr. LLOYD: I understand that the nature of this accident, which occurred on 15th May, was not the explosion of an oxygen cylinder but an explosion during repair of a rectifying column. The matter is under investigation, and I cannot make a statement at present as to the cause.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.

Sir REGINALD BLAIR: asked the Home Secretary when he proposes to publish the return showing the number of electors for each constituency?

Mr LLOYD: My hon. Friend refers presumably to the election expenses return which includes particulars of the electorate of each constituency. My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to present this return towards the end of July.

TRAVELLING FACILITIES (ENFIELD).

Mr R. C. MORRISON: asked the Minister of Transport whether any immediate improvements in the Enfield-Liverpool Street section of the London and North Eastern Railway are receiving active consideration?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Bull) on 19th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. MORRISON: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that, according to the reply to which he has referred me, it will be at least four years before the London and North Eastern Railway Company are in a position to undertake any alterations; and does the Ministry intend that the present obsolete railway system shall go on for another four years?

Captain HUDSON: I have nothing to add to that answer for the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many


strikes have occurred in industrial concerns in India during the past 12 months; in how many cases the local governments concerned offered any resistance to the workers or their representatives to obtain a redress of their grievances; and what progress is being made towards carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Labour to improve working-class conditions in India?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): There were 145 disputes in 1935, in none of which has there been any evidence of resistance offered by the local governments to the legitimate industrial demands of the workers. A copy of the latest report, dated 1935, showing the action taken on the recommendations of the Whitley Commission, is being placed in the Library.

Mr. SORENSEN: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is largely owing to the slow progress made with the recommendations of the Whitley Commission there have been so many strikes?

Mr. BUTLER: I do not agree with the hon. Member's suggestion that progress with the recommendations of the Whitley Commission has been slow. If the hon. Member will read what I have put in the Library, I think that he will agree with me.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (COMMUNICATIONS).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government are allowed to address communications direct to the Secretary of the League of Nations without passing through his hands in the first place?

Mr. BUTLER: All communications from the Government of India to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, with certain minor exceptions, pass through the Secretary of State for India.

PUBLICATIONS (SEIZURE).

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India how many publications were seized by the Customs authorities during the past 12 months; and how many of these publications were seized before the Government of India

or the local governments had expressed an opinion on their nature?

Mr. BUTLER: I regret I have not the information desired by the hon. Member.

Mr. SORENSEN: Will the hon. Gentleman secure the information?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, Sir.

HINDI LANGUAGE.

Mr. MESSER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India on what grounds the Government of the Northwest Frontier Province has recently taken administrative action prejudicial to the spreading of the Hindi language in that province?

Mr. BUTLER: I have no information regarding this matter, but will inquire.

DETENU (MYMENSINGH).

Mr. MESSER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that one Nani Gopal Chakravarty was interned without trial in a village in Mymensingh, and has now committed suicide; and whether any documents were found on the person of the dead man which tended to show the cause of the tragedy?

Mr. BUTLER: My only official information is that a detenu in village domicile disappeared during the first half of April and was later found drowned. I presume that this is the case to which the hon. Member refers, and I am asking the Government of India for a fuller report.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister for what purpose the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule is being moved?

The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to make good progress with the Air Navigation Bill. We do not propose to sit late. We hope that substantial progress will be made to-day. We do, however, propose to take the Report stages of the Tithe and the Crown Lands Money Resolutions, both of which are exempted business.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this clay's Sitting,


from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 93.

Division No. 196.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Albery, I. J.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Munro, P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Granville, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Assheton, R.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Patrick, C. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Peake, O.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Guy, J. C. M.
Plcktnorn, K. W. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Pilkington, R.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Hannah, I. C.
Plugge, L. F.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Blair, Sir R.
Harvey, G.
Rankin, R.


Blaker, Sir R.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Blindell, Sir J.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bossom, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Reid, Sir D, D. (Down)


Boulton, W. W
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Remer, J. R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Holdsworth, H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D, (L'derry)


Briscoe. Capt R. G.
Holmes, J. S.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Russell, S, H. M. (Darwen)


Bull, B. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Salt, E. W


Burghley, Lord
Hulbert, N. J.
Samuel, Sir A. M, (Farnham)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Butler, R. A.
Jackson, Sir H.
Sandys, E. D.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir p.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Savory, Servington


Cary, R. A.
Joel, D. J. B.
Selley, H. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Channon, H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Simmonds, O. E.


Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Chapman, Sir S, (Edinburgh, S.)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D,


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarke, F. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Smithers Sir W.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Latham, Sir P.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Column, N. C. D.
Leckie, J. A.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H-


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Levy, T.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Critchley, A.
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Crooke, J. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Storey, S.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lindsay, K. M.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Strauss, E, A. (Southwark, N.)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lloyd, G. W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Loftus, P. C.
Sueter, Rear- Admiral Sir M. F.


De Chair, S. S.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
Lyons, A. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tate, Mavis C.


Denville, Alfred
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, P. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Macdonald. Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wakefield, W. W.


Duggan, H. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wallace. Captain Euan


Dunglass, Lord
Maclay, Hon. J. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Eales, J. F.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Eckersley, P. T.
Magnay, T.
Wlckham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maitland, A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Ellis, Sir G.
Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchln)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Windsor-dive, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Errington, E.
Markham, S. F.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Wise, A. R.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Everard, W. L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partlck)


Findlay, Sir E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Fleming, E. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Moreing, A. C.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Furness, S. N.
Morgan, R. H.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)





NOES.


Attlee. Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.


Batey, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Prltt, D. N.


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bevan, A.
Holland, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, D.
Rowson, G.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Compton, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Davies. R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J J.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McEntee, V. La T.
Whiteley, W.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Marklew, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.



Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Totte[...]ham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Mr. Kimball; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bossom.

Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Tithe Bill): Major Carver; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Arthur Reed.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

(Compiled from the "International Yearbook of Agricultural Statistics" and the "Monthly Crop Report and Agricultural Statistics" of the International Institute of Agriculture.)





1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
1935.





In thousand tons (of 2,24[...]s)


Total world Exports
…
16,512·9
20,035·4
17,091·8
15,085·0
14,359·4 (a)
13,332·4 (a)


Of which exported from:








United states
…
…
2,351·5
2,151·6
1,505·2
237·9
456·9
10·3


Canada
…
…
5,565·1
5,218·6
6,113·1
5,150·3
4,497·9
4,437·7


Argentina
…
…
2,178·4
3,581·2
3,387·5
3,867·1
4.716·0
3,796·3


Australia
…
…
1,436·2
3,526·5
3,314·4
3,085·6
1.755·
1,874·2


Soviet Union
…
…
2,490·9
2,459·5
542·2
736·4
208·4
709·7


(a) Incomplete. Figure represents total of exports from countries accounting for about 99 cent. of world exports in the four-year period 1930 to 1933.

WRITTEN ANSWERS.

WHEAT IMPORTS.

Mr. LYONS: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of wheat exported in each year 1930 to 1935, inclusive, from each of the following countries: the United States of America, Canada, Argentina, Australia, and Russia; and the total of world exports in each of the years mentioned?

Dr. BURGIN: The following statement shows the total world exports of wheat during each of the years 1930 to 1935, distinguishing the quantities exported from the Unites States, Canada, Argentina, Australia and the Soviet Union.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING VOUCHERS).

Sir W. ALLEN: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the first-class return fare between Belfast and London, without sleeping accommodation, is 120s. and that the third-class and saloon fare, with sleeping accommodation, is 92s. 6d.; whether the latter privilege can be granted to Members, thereby saving 27s. 6d. each return journey to the Treasury and similarly on all other routes where sleeping accommodation is necessary and a saving to the Treasury may be effected; and will he take into consideration provision for sleeping accommodation generally to Members on journeys to and from their constituencies?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the Regulations relating to Members' travelling vouchers from which he will see that provision is made for the substitution for first-class travel of third-class travel with sleeping accommodation where no excess cost is involved. The arrangements apply to third class and saloon fare with sleeping accommodation for a journey between London and Belfast.

RAILWAY PASSENGER FARES.

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Minister of Transport whether he or the Railway Rates Tribunal have taken any action and, if so, of what nature during the past three years to require the main line railway companies to define a chargeable distance for the purpose of fixing passenger fares generally and, in particular, season ticket rates?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The railway companies are precluded from charging in excess of the standard mileage rates laid down by the Railway Rates Tribunal. Any questions of interpretation are matters for judicial decision.

INDIA.

DEFENCE.

Mr. ANDERSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what action has been taken as the result of the passing by the India Legislative Assembly of a resolution proposing the setting up

of a standing committee of both houses for consultation on matters of defence?

Mr. BUTLER: For reasons given in the course of the debate the Government of India were unable to accept the resolution.

OPIUM.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what, if any, recent action has been, taken by the Governments of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, in dealing with the consumption of opium?

Mr. BUTLER: I have no recent information, but will ask for a report.

PALESTINE.

JAFFA PORT.

Captain STRICKLAND: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the disabilities which face importers resident in Tel Aviv who import goods via Jaffa, where there is only an open road and no adequate harbour; and whether, in view of the fact that this disability is leading to increased and unnecessary congestion at the port of Haifa, he will give early consideration, to the proposals for providing additional and adequate port accommodation at Tel Aviv itself?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: It is a fact that conditions at the port of Jaffa have been unsatisfactory and that the difficulties are temporarily increased at the present time by the Arab strike. An extensive improvement scheme is expected to reach completion by the end of the current year and plans which have been prepared for a large extension of the accommodation at Haifa will be carried out as funds become available. There is no reason to suppose that the needs of the situation cannot be met by the improvements and extensions which are being carried out or are in contemplation at Jaffa and Haifa.

TOURISTS (MONEY GUARANTEE).

Mr. WATKINS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the 600 German Nazis, who recently visited Palestine for an eight-day tour, were required to deposit a sum of money; if Jews visiting the land of their ancestors are also required to deposit a sum of money; and, if so, the amount in each case?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I have no information with regard to the party of tourists mentioned in the first part of the question. All travellers to Palestine may be required, at the discretion of the passport control authorities, to deposit a sum of £60 or a guarantee of a similar sum, as security for their departure from Palestine within the statutory period of a temporary visit.

COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (ANTI-SEDITION LAWS).

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give a list of publications, books, newspapers and periodicals prohibited to be imported or circulated under the various seditious publications laws and orders in British Colonies, Protectorates and Mandated Territories?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: It would not be in the public interest to give the information for which the hon. Member asks.

PIGS MARKETING.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any figures to show the mileage travelled by pigs by road or by rail between the centres of production in Lincolnshire and the bacon factories?

Mr. ELLIOT: I regret I have no such figures.

ITALIANS IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. GROVES: asked the Home Secretary the number of Italians domiciled in Great Britain; how many of them are naturalised; and the numbers of them who have settled in Great Britain in each year since 1918, and how many of these are naturalized?

Mr. LLOYD: The number of Italians registered with the police in June, 1935, was approximately 21,500, which is about 6,000 less than the number registered in 1921, the earliest year for which figures were taken. Statistics covering the other points mentioned are not available, but the number of certificates of naturalisation granted to Italians since 1918 is 1,359.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (APPEALS).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: asked the Minister of Health in what approximate percentage of cases in the last 12 months where an appeal was made to him under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and the Town and Country Planning (General Interim Development) Order, 1933, a decision was given favourable to the local authority?

Sir K. WOOD: The approximate percentage of interim development appeals dealt with during the 12 months ended 30th April, 1936, on which a decision was given favourable to the local authority was 34. In 49 per cent., agreement was reached between the parties or the appeals otherwise lapsed. In the remaining 17 per cent. the appeals were allowed.

SMALLPOX.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Minister of Health how many cases of smallpox have been discovered by the port authorities of London, Liverpool, Bristol, and Cardiff on ships arriving at those ports during the last 20 years?

Sir K. WOOD: pursuant to his reply (OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May; col. 1363; Vol. 312) supplied the following information:

Notifications of Smallpox in, Port Sanitary Districts for the years1916–1935 inclusive.


London
…
…
…
39


Liverpool
…
…
…
30


Bristol
…
…
…
2


Cardiff
…
…
…
4

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' AUDIT.

Mr. WHITELEY: asked the Minister of Health whether, under Section 226 of the Local Government Act, 1933, a local government elector or someone representing his interests may be permitted to submit any matter other than matters relating to the accounts before the auditor?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

HOUSING (AGED PERSONS).

Mr. HOLLAND: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the percentage figures of the rural district


councils and urban district councils which have entered upon schemes of house building suitable for old people?

Sir K. WOOD: At the present moment my information on this head covers only the last two years. During that period proposals to erect dwellings suitable for old people were approved in the case of 92 urban districts (or 14 per cent.) and 47 rural districts (or 9.7 per cent.).

ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any request from the Italian Government for the removal of the Sikh guard from His Majesty's legation at Addis Ababa has been received by His Majesty's Government or by Sir Sidney Barton; and whether the various precincts of His Majesty's Consulates in Ethopia are still maintained intact in British occupation without interference from the Italian military forces?

Mr. EDEN: The Italian Government have invited His Majesty's Government to consider whether, in the light of the occupation of Addis Ababa, it would not now be desirable to withdraw the reinforcement despatched last year to

strengthen the British Legation guard and to provide adequate protection for British subjects in the event of local emergency. As the situation in Addis Ababa is still far from stable, the Italian Government have been informed that the matter is still under consideration. As regards the last part of the question, His Majesty's Consulates at Mega and Maji have been temporarily closed owing to the difficulty of protecting or evacuating their staffs in the event of local disorders such as have occurred elsewhere. In Harar, which has been occupied by the Italian forces, His Majesty's Consulate continues to function normally.

POST OFFICE (TELEPHONE SERVICE).

Mr. DAY: asked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to introduce the new inquiries services on the telephone exchanges?

Major TRYON: The question of amplifying and improving existing means of dealing with public inquiries on Post Office services generally is under close consideration, but I am not yet able to say when the developments I have in view will come into operation.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Agreements for subsidising transport.)

3.54 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "and to furnish facilities for their aircraft."
This Clause appears to be the most important financial Clause in the Bill. I should have thought it would have been desirable, therefore, to couch it in more precise terminology. I have seldom seen a vaguer financial Clause in a Bill than this, which authorises the Secretary of State to pay an enormous sum of money, amounting to £1,500,000, in subsidies to Imperial Airways and other concerns. In addition to that, up to a total expense which is in no way specified or limited by this Clause, the Secretary of State is to furnish facilities for their aircraft. It has been thought necessary to impose a limit upon the amount of the subsidy, but not upon the benefits which the company are to receive by way of further facilities, and the first question that we shall ask the Minister is, what is the nature of the facilities which he proposes to give, and how much will they cost?
In the Debate upon the Financial Resolution it was pointed out that almost every Department of the State has contributed in some form or another to the maintenance, control and assistance of Imperial Airways, the main concern which is in receipt of subsidies, and will be in receipt of further facilities. Has the right lion. Baronet, or anybody at the Air Ministry, made any computation as to the total cost to the State of the further facilities which have been granter? to Imperial Airways in the past, and which it is proposed to grant in the future? If I might give the Committee one or two indications of the methods by which expenditure can be incurred under this phrase "further facilities," I would mention first the meteorological service. Perhaps the Minister would give us a precise figure, which must be considerable, of the cost of that service which is maintained

by the Ministry. Anyone who is acquainted with the Air Force knows that at nine o'clock every morning a machine from what is known as the "Met flight," meaning meteorological flight, flies to 10,000 feet in order to take observations. Considerable organisation is involved, and the whole of it is at the disposal of Imperial Airways. What is the total cost of that form of State control which Imperial Airways receives?
The second illustration is the diplomatic assistance received by the company. I am seeking to concentrate the attention of the Committee upon Imperial Airways, not because I imagine that it is the only company to receive these facilities, but because it will undoubtedly be the main company. I should, therefore, like to know the total cost of the diplomatic assistance granted to the company. When we were discussing this matter the other day upon another Motion, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) put forward, as a substantial objection to State control, the point that if this concern were so controlled, the State would be brought into collision with every kind of foreign Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That point does not arise upon the Amendment.

Mr. GARRO JONES: May I point out with great respect that the Clause entitles the Minister to pay money for furnishing facilities for the aircraft of the company? If it is necessary for the aircraft to fly over Greece, and if they cannot do so until the diplomatic machinery of this country has been put in motion, that machinery, at the request of the Secretary of State, is spending money in furnishing facilities for the aircraft of Imperial Airways.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not under the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which is moved to leave out specified facilities. The point described by the hon. Member might arise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," but not on the Amendment.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I see the force of your Ruling and, of course, I shall bow to it. I shall, therefore, content myself now with asking the Minister to give us an indication of the various facilities


which he proposes that these concerns shall have, and, above all, to give us an idea of the cost, because we have never been able to find out what these services from the State represent and their total cost. I hope that before the Committee pass from my Amendment to others they will at least see that the Minister gives a full statement such as has not been given to the Committee hitherto.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I would like to support the request of my hon. Friend for further information. When we were discussing the Financial Resolution I put a point covering a number of aspects of it, and the Solicitor-General was good enough to make inquiries, but he said later that it was not practicable to give any precise answer. I appreciated that, but I should have thought it was possible to give some approximate answer, some limit one way or the other. Friends of mine who have expert knowledge of this question have made calculations, and the figures they have reached are so enormous that I almost hesitate to mention them here; they go into millions. I hope that to-day the Solicitor-General will be able to give us some sort of indication. We are entitled to know, before we vote a large sum of money for a subsidy, what the recipients are getting in indirect services of one kind or another. The point arises in connection with a statement that I saw in the Press yesterday. The Portsmouth City Council have decided to spend a lot of money on an air station, and have stated that it was required to support Empire flying. There followed this statement:
It is estimated that it would result in an annual loss of £45,000, which would be paid by the Government and by Portsmouth between them. They were asking the Air Ministry to pay 75 per cent. of this loss.
Can the Under-Secretary say whether that is one of the items on which it is proposed to lend money, and whether there are other items of the same kind?

4.4 p.m.

Mr. G. HARDIE: The Committee are entitled to know two things. It is proposed to spend the sum of money that is mentioned in the Bill. One would have thought, since that is a limited amount which can be split, that we would be told how many companies or persons are to receive it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: The Amendment is to leave out words following the words "to any persons" If "persons" were ruled out, I submit that the words that follow would have no meaning.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment does not leave out the word "persons." Therefore, any question as to what arises from its omission is not in order now.

Mr. HARDIE: The words that follow, which it is proposed to leave out, have relation to the persons or companies. The money that is to be spent in the way of subsidies has not to go to other than "persons." I would like to know whether those persons are individuals.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must raise that point on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," but not on this Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: Then I would ask this: Since the amount of subsidy is limited, are the facilities to be limited? The facilities must be measured by the amount of money spent on them. If the Minister wants the Clause to be made plain and wishes to get his Bill through speedily, he should give us a statement as to the meaning of these words. What is the meaning of "facilities"? It is something like the word "reasonable," the interpretation of which has caused many difficulties. What does the word "facilities" include? As an engineer I can calculate something regarding aircraft facilities that £1,500,000 would not touch. The Committee have a right to know every detail that can be produced. Facilities that might be given under this part of the Clause might include things with which the whole Committee disagreed. Who is going to say whether the facilities will be either £100,000 or £500,000; whether they are to be worth £1 or £100? The Clause mentions the words "for their aircraft." What does that mean? Is the money to be spent only on the machine itself or does it mean provision of a landing place which is not a machine? If it is merely "for their aircraft," for what part of the aircraft is it? Is it to be general? I could go on much longer, but I think I have made clear to the Minister what kind of details I want.

4.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I tried at an earlier stage to move an Amendment which provided that the Ministry and the Government might spend their money not wholly on subsidising companies, but in actually providing aerodromes, I was told by the Solicitor-General that that was possible by virtue of the words, in the Clause, "furnish facilities for their aircraft." That is why I am a little nervous about the Amendment, because if these words were taken out the Amendment would deprive the Government of power to make an aerodrome of its own, quite apart from the scheme for making aerodromes through subsiding some company. I feel strongly that when on the great Imperial air route, throughout the world, we are making aerodromes, those aerodromes should be a national possession and not the possession of private companies. It may well occur in future years that other companies passing through a particular area would want to use such an aerodrome. If the State owned the aerodrome all would be well, but if a company owned it a considerable penalty on another organisation might arise. I would draw attention to the fact that already in some parts of Africa aerodromes that were provided by virtue of the money of the taxpayer are to-day in the hands of great companies, and the ordinary private flyer with a small aeroplane is charged as much as £2 to land. That is the thin edge of the wedge of a great abuse. I, therefore, ask the Government, when they are considering the building of aerodromes up and down the world, that they should do it entirely on their own, and that the work should be divorced from the help given to the company. I hope that the Government will leave in the Clause the words that it is proposed to leave out. I resist the Amendment.

4.10 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: I do not want to follow very far the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken. My information with regard to aerodromes on Empire routes is that to-day in fact they do belong to the Government, and that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that they are in the possession of Imperial Airways. I think I am right in saying that Imperial Airways own only one aerodrome, that they use other

aerodromes on our Empire routes in accordance with the arrangements made with the Air Ministry, and that these aerodromes are open to any other lines or passenger machines. I do not think that either the hon. Gentleman who proposed or the hon. Gentleman who seconded this Amendment will expect the Under-Secretary to accept it. It was probably moved with the idea of obtaining information. Obviously about one of the matters which the Mover of the Amendment inquired, namely, meteorological reports, it is not possible for the Air Ministry to give detailed figures of the cost of that service in so far as it affects aeroplanes. Meteorological reports are broadcast throughout the world. They are used by Thins as well as by aeroplanes, and it would be impossible to apportion the cost between aeroplanes and ships, let alone between one aeroplane and another or one air line and another.
I would like to revert to the question of aerodromes, as this may be an opportunity of eliciting from the Under-Secretary a statement as to the future policy and the management of aerodromes. As I see it, it will be more and more necessary to limit the use of aerodromes to trunk lines and particular services which may or may not be subsidised, but which are the recognised services along that route. Take Croydon as an example. As Imperial Airways develops, as Continental services develop, as the large passenger machines become more and more numerous. I feel certain that it will be found necessary to limit the use of certain aerodromes to those lines, and to discourage and probably eventually to prohibit the use of those aerodromes by private aeroplanes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is travelling very wide of the Amendment.

Colonel ROPNER: We are discussing the facilities which are to be granted to aircraft, and what I am trying to point out is that the Air Ministry may find it necessary to limit those facilities to certain companies. If I may add a few words I will finish what I was saying on that matter. I would like to know what is the policy of the Ministry, or what the policy will be when aeroplanes become more and more numerous. It is just at the time when the weather is thick that


privately-owned machines will want to land at the aerodromes used by Imperial Airways. I know the difficulties. Dangers may be created for private machines, but I am certain that aerodromes will have to be used more and more in the way that railway stations are used, with limited tines running in and out of them, rather than as harbours into which any ship can go. If the Under-Secretary can give me some information with regard to this matter, I shall be much obliged.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I hope the Under-Secretary will not agree to this Amendment. In our previous discussions on this matter I think it has been the general view of the House that already these subsidies are too much canalised in one or two directions, and the present Amendment would prevent as wide a dispersal as the Government at present intend. Facilities for aircraft, which hon. Members opposite seem to have such difficulty in appreciating, would be really appreciated by those British air transport companies that are not in the enjoyment of a capital sum of money, and I think that the Committee would not be fulfilling its own intention if it were to prevent the Secretary of State from assisting those otherwise non-subsidised companies to enjoy some benefit from this expenditure.

4.16 p.m.

Captain F. E. GUEST: I should like, if I may, to submit a suggestion with regard to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), and more or less supported by other Members, namely, that the facilities given under the head of aerodromes which are State-subsidised should be State property. I have very intimate experience of the route which is known as the South African route, and my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in saying that a private individual—and it will be true also of a competing company—is liable to be charged heavy fees for the use of grounds which have been provided by State labour. I do not want to dwell on the Amendment, but should like to draw attention to the looseness of the phraseology of the Bill. I would suggest that the question of aerodromes, which is vital to the development of commercial aviation as a whole, should form

the subject of a new Clause on the Report stage. I shall vote for the deletion of these words and shall put down a new Clause, if I can get anyone to support me, to deal with this matter specifically and in detail on the Report stage.

4.17 p.m.

Captain GUNSTON: It seems to me that the hon. Member for East Wolver-hampton (Mr. Mander), in asking the Under-Secretary for information with regard to the facilities to be provided, had in mind the aeronautical survey. I wonder if the Under-Secretary could tell the Committee what is the actual position with regard to the information given to airway companies in meteorological reports—whether any charge is made, or whether the informatiton is provided by the State without any charge to people making use of this service? If this service is provided free, it must amount to an enormous subsidy given to all aircraft and shipping. This is a matter in which I believe the country is very interested, and I shall be grateful if my right hon. Friend will dead with is as well.

4.10 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Would the Under-Secretary explain whether the words which the Amendment seeks to delete will apply only to companies which are in receipt of subsidies, or whether the interpretation is that all companies will be entitled to receive facilities, irrespective of whether they are in receipt of a subsidy or not? Personally, I should not support the Amendment, and I trust that the interpretation of the Under-Secretary will be in the widest sense. I believe there is a universal desire in the Committee that subsidies should be reduced as the period goes on and as aviation develops, and I believe that the granting to aircraft of facilities other than direct subsidies is probably the most useful way in which the State can serve this new development of aviation.
With regard to the phraseology of the Bill, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) I was a member of the Gorell Committee. We sat for a long time, and had great difficulty in framing phrases for our report which would interpret the intentions in regard to a newly developing art, and I believe that the loose phraseology of the Bill is in some


degree necessitated by the difficulty of interpreting a new art working in the ether. The real questions is, how are the Executive going to administer the powers which the Legislature is giving them? I think it would save a good deal of time in this Committee if, as the beginning of the Committee stage of the Bill, my right hon. Friend could give us an assurance that the Executive intend to administer the Bill in the spirit in which the Gorell Committee wished them to administer it. The other day my right hon. Friend said he was not going so far as the Gorell Committee wished, and I do not dispute that, but we should like an assurance that this nebulous thing which we are handing over to the Executive will not be crushed administratively, but will be interpreted by them in the widest possible way. I believe that to be what the Legislature desires.

4.22 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am very glad at the outset to be able to give a complete reassurance to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour). The intention is to give the maximum possible amount of freedom to civil aviation, and I hope that that intention will be carried out. With regard to the question whether the furnishing of facilities applies only to subsidised companies, I am equally glad to say that it will apply to any companies, whether in receipt of a subsidy or not.

Mr. MONTAGUE: That does not appear in the Clause; it is merely the assurance of the Under-Secretary.

Sir P. SASSOON: It is obvious that the facilities provided at aerodromes which are open for the use of any line must be available for any company using the aerodrome—

Captain GUEST: If my right hon. Friend could delete the words "for their aircraft," which specifically refer to companies receiving subsidies, it seems to me that the matter would not be open to dispute.

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. May I ask what is the difference between the word "companies," which I used just now when I was ruled out of order, and the word "persons"?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seemed to me that the hon. Member was arguing whether the subsidy should be given to persons or to companies, and that question does not arise.

Mr. HARDIE: The question is, who gets the facilities?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to be arguing that point, but something quite different.

Sir P. SASSOON: I will do my best to make the matter clear. "Facilities for their aircraft" apply to any persons, and, therefore, my interpretation is that facilities can be provided for any line, whether it is in receipt of subsidy or not.

4.25 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: May I point out that the facilities may only be furnished "in consideration of undertakings entered into by those persons"? The right hon. Gentleman will have no power to furnish facilities at all except in consideration of such undertakings, which must be entered into by the persons to whom subsidies are payable. It is clear from the terms of the Clause that in no conceivable circumstances would the right hon. Gentleman have any right to give any facilities except to subsidised aircraft.

Sir P. SASSOON: People who are not in receipt of subsidy can surely give undertakings.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The words are "undertakings entered into by those persons"—not "by any persons"; and "those persons" are the persons to whom the right hon. Gentleman has agreed to pay subsidies.

4.26 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps I might proceed with my remarks in reference to the Amendment—

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Clause speaks of furnishing "facilities for their aircraft"—that is to say, the aircraft used in connection with, the persons to whom subsidies axe paid. The question that we desire elucidated is whether the facilities will also be available for aircraft belonging to other companies using these aerodromes.

Sir P. SASSOON: I thought I had made that point clear. These facilities are afforded to people in receipt of subsidies, but they are, of course, available for any other line that uses the aerodrome. May I give an example? The facilities provided at aerodromes on Empire routes are provided, in the first place, because those routes are being run by a national undertaking, but there is absolutely nothing to prevent any other aircraft from using those aerodromes and availing themselves of those facilities. I cannot see that there is any difficulty in interpretation.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to delete the word "their" on Report?

4.28 p.m.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Terence O'Connor): I am loth to interrupt or intervene in my right hon. Friend's very clear exposition of the meaning of these words, but, with regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), may I give an interpretation which perhaps is not quite in accord with his, but is the interpretation that I put upon the words we are discussing? As I read the Clause—which, I may say, is practically identical in terms with the Section of the Act of 1930, which has been in operation for the last six years—it provides that the Secretary of State may pay subsidies to any persons and may provide facilities for the aircraft of any persons, but can only provide facilities for the aircraft of any persons in consideration of undertakings entered into by those persons; that is to say, he may provide facilities which can be used by people who give an undertaking to carry passengers or goods, even if those persons are not in receipt of a subsidy. That is the interpretation that I put upon the words. It is not the interpretation of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, whose opinion in these matters I very greatly respect, even when it differs from my own. As I read the Clause, the Secretary of State is not authorised to provide facilities for aircraft which are not either subsidised or under an undertaking to the Secretary of State. So that the Clause does not provide for the provision of aerodromes for private undertakings.

Captain GUEST: The hon. and learned Gentleman is separating private flyers who may be conveying passengers from one place to another from commercial undertakings which are not on the list of those receiving subsidies. It is a very narrow distinction to draw. Surely, unless they are all entitled to use national aerodromes, there is an opportunity of differentiating.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that point is met in this way. This is not intended to be a method whereby the Secretary of State provides aerodromes for private persons. That is not the method adopted. There are other ways in which these aerodromes can be provided, and other ways in which the expenditure is met out of the Vote. This is not the relevant procedure. It is intended, as I understand it, for a different kind of service altogether.

4.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I do not think the Solicitor-General need apologise at all for intervening. Here is a Clause drafted in such a sloppy way that already the lawyers are arguing about it. What sort of chance will the ordinary man-in-the-street or in the aeroplane have when he does not know what the first Clause is all about? It has not been made perfectly clear as to what the Government intend to do for these aerodromes. As far as I understand, it is possible for someone who enters into an undertaking but who has not had a subsidy to land upon these aerodromes. If one of these companies proceeded against the Government for allowing a private man to land on the aerodrome, I understand from these words as they stand that he could get an injunction against the private man. What sort of national aerodromes are we talking about?

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is it not clear that, although it is the intention of the Government that these aerodromes should be available to companies other than those in receipt of subsidies, and equally the desire of the Committee that this should be the case, there is, nevertheless, great legal doubt as to whether, in fact, these words give the Government the power they think they possess? Will the Under-Secretary give an assurance that the matter will be further looked


into before Report, and then give us a succinct definition of the wording on the Clause.

4.35 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) says the Clause is drafted in a very sloppy way. If that is the case, it has been in this sloppy state since 1930, because it is identical with the first Section of the Act of that year. This Bill in no way has anything to do with the provision of aerodromes. It is a question of facilities. These are supplementary facilities in the shape of ground organisation and meteorological services. If they were excluded, there would obviously have to be a far greater cash addition to the subsidies with which the Clause deals. The facilities are wireless facilities, meteorological facilities, facilities for night flying and moorings for aircraft. Such activities as those are in accordance with international practice and the normal facilities provided by Government agencies. If they are not available for other services, British or foreign, we have no guarantee that any company or national organisation appointed by the Government to operate British air services will be able to secure the necessary facilities and ground organisation on routes outside British territory.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said he was appalled to gather the impression that the expense of these facilities amounted to six or seven figures. Of course, the cost of this ground organisation is a continuing expenditure year by year, and the sums that are taken for it are shown year by year on the Air Vote. For instance, the total provision for 1936 is shown under Sub-head C of Vote 6, £250,000. Outside this there is the cost of meteorological facilities under Vote 9, totalling £20,000 for civil aviation. It will be impossible to give a total figure as to what these facilities come to, because it is a continuing charge. It is essential that they should be provided, not only for the benefit of the national lines but also for those other British lines that may be operating without a subsidy, as well as for those foreign lines from whom we get reciprocal treatment. I hope that in the

circumstances the Committee will agree that these words shall remain.

4.39 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Amendment seems to raise two points. First of all what the words mean which it is proposed to delete, and whether they ought to remain, whatever their meaning may be decided to be. As to the first, the words are "to furnish facilities for their aircraft," and one has to inquire to what "their" refers. It must clearly refer to some words that precede it. The only words to which it can apply which have preceded it are, "to pay subsidies to any persons." It must, therefore, be read as "to furnish facilities for the aircraft of the persons to whom subsidies are payable." That is the only conceivable definition. If what the Solicitor-General suggested was the meaning of this, it would not have been "their aircraft," but "any aircraft," which would have covered the situation admirably, and shown that it was not limited to the persons already mentioned. That is made abundantly clear by the words that follow, because the facilities will only be furnished in consideration of undertakings entered into by those persons. Again, the only persons who have been mentioned are the persons in receipt of subsidy. So that the undertaking must be given by the persons who are in receipt of subsidy, and you can only furnish facilities to the aircraft of those people and in consideration of the undertaking. It is clear that the words as they stand are limited to empowering the Secretary of State to furnish facilities for the aircraft of those people who are in receipt of subsidies. He would be going outside his powers were he to furnish a ground staff, or meteorological services, or wireless or night flying services, or moorings for any other aircraft at all. I understand from what the right hon. Baronet has stated that part of the objective of these words is to provide reciprocal services for foreign aircraft. He said that, unless such services are provided, international flying will become impossible. This could not conceivably give him power to provide facilities for foreign aircraft in any circumstances, and, if he desires such powers, he will have to seek them somewhere else, and by some other measures.
Secondly, if that is what these words mean, they are really only a concealed


subsidy, and it is surely highly undesirable, when we are considering the quantum of the subsidy that is to be granted in connection with these undertakings entered into by persons with respect to the carriage by air of passengers or goods, that part of that subsidy should be expressed in cash and the other part by undefined services of a concealed nature. The question whether the £1,500,000 is sufficient will depend very largely upon the value of these concealed subsidy services. The right hon. Baronet stated that, if these were excluded, there would have to be a far greater addition to the cash subsidy. He, therefore, admits that these services are in the nature of a subsidy. Why is it not possible to make charges to these lines, as are made to anyone else, and to increase the subsidy, if necessary, in accordance with those charges in order that people generally may know what in fact is the value that is given annually to these various companies, because it is clear that it is going to be a great deal more than £1,500,000.
I will not enter into the question of whether it is desirable to give more than £1,500,000, but surely it is most desirable from the point of view of public accountancy that we should know what we are giving, and at present he tells us we do not know what we are giving. If these words are to be omitted it will be possible for the right hon. Baronet to pay any subsidy or we might enable him to provide services of any sort to these various companies to the extent of £1,500,000 and, if he thinks that is not enough to cover what they really need in connection with national flying, he should increase that amount of money. He should not leave it merely to be covered by this vague permission for the Ministry of Air to provide ground staff, to provide moorings, to provide wireless services and all the rest of it in an indefinite and quite irregular way. I, therefore, hope the Committee will delete these words, not because they wish the right hon. Baronet not to provide proper services but because those services, if they are to be provided, should be provided in the proper way, and the proper way is not to limit them to a few privileged companies, putting in if he requires it a provision by which these services can be provided to civil aviation as a whole, when it will not be a con-

cealed subsidy, but will be a national service, and will be a start in nationalising the flying services of the country, which is the only proper solution of the problem.

4.45 p.m.

Major HILLS: I am reluctant to draw swords with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but he says that the best plan is to omit these words altogether. If we should omit them altogether, I do not know what would happen to civilian aviation.

Sir S. C R I PPS: I said that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister should introduce proper words to cover what he really requires to do.

Major HILLS: These have been the proper words for six years, and they had not been questioned until the hon. and learned Gentleman questioned them.

Sir S. CRIPPS: It was not I.

Major HILLS: Well, then, my two hon. Friends on my right. Do they expect to be provided with free airports? That is not what this Bill provides; it does not provide free airports. Do they expect to get them without giving any undertaking? [Interruption.]They do; then I agree with my right hon. Friend that this Clause does not make that provision. It was never intended that the Bill should go as far as that. It is a very different undertaking altogether, if it has to give any company which intends to fly, the right to claim an airport anywhere. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) nods his head.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot go into the general question of whether the Government should or should not provide facilities for anybody. Hon. Members are entitled to ask what the words mean and what they cover, but we really cannot, on an Amendment to leave out these words, enter upon a general discussion of high policy.

Major HILLS: I accept your Ruling, Captain Bourne. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment. No one wants the Amendment carried except those who desire to destroy the Bill. If the Amendment were carried, the whole Bill would go by the board. I am certain that the Committee, although hon. Members want certain Amendments to be


made, really do want the Bill, and unless this Clause is inserted no Bill will be possible.

4.45 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: One thing has emerged very clearly from this Debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) have disagreed slightly as to the interpretation of the words, but neither of them has disagreed that under the Bill, when it passes, no company will be able to land at a Government-provided aerodrome unless it is in receipt of a subsidy. An hon. Member says "By arrangement." The Under-Secretary of State stated that it is his wish that other companies should land,

but when we have passed the Bill it will not be the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman that will count, but the interpretation of the Bill in law. I think that everyone will agree that no clearer exposition of the interpretation of the Bill in law could have been given than that which was given by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol. There fore, what we are now doing is giving a huge concealed subsidy in another form to Imperial Airways, and I sincerely hope that the Committee will not allow the Amendment to pass.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 221; Noes, 96.

Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Titchfield. Marquess of


Pilkington, R.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Touche, G. C.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smithers Sir W.
Wakef[...]d, W. W,


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Reid, D. D. (Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Remer, J. R.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L
Warrender, Sir V.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T, R.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Runclman, Rt. Hon. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Storey, S.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchln)


Salmon, Sir I.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Salt, E. W.
Stauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Samuel, Sir A. M, (Farnham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Sanderson, Sir F B.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Sandys, E, D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE Ayes—


Savory, Servington
Sutcliffe, H.
Major George Davies and Captain


Scott, Lord William
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Waterhouse.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Montague, F.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A. J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Batey, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Benson, G,
Hardle, G. D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rowson, G.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Chater, D.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Cluse, W. S.
Holdsworth, H.
Shinwell, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Holland, A.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Hopkin, D.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Compton, J.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. sir Stafford
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T,
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Tate, Mavis C.


Day, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leslie, J. R.
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Logan, O. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGhee, H. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mander, G. le M.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marklew, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D, R.
Messer, F.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: Mr. Montague.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: On a point of Order. Will you give some indication, Captain Bourne, how it is that a very important Amendment which I have put down—in page 1, line 13, after "persons," insert "and confirmed by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament"—is not to be taken. It seems to raise a question which is dear to the hearts of hon. Members. Here we are voting a lump sum of money, and we want to know how it is to be spent. I cannot see that my Amendment is in any way out of order. Parliament should be able to see how a

subsidy is being spent and what agreements are being made, and should be given an opportunity of confirming such arrangements by resolution.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment is not out of order, but it happens to be repeated in a very much superior form by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander).

4.49 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out "five hundred thousand."
The purpose of the Amendment is to reduce the amount to the original subsidy


of £1,000,000. I cannot help thinking that the answer that was given by the Under-Secretary in the discussion on the last Amendment is the strongest argument that I can put forward for this Amendment, because he told us that in addition to the proposed subsidy of £1,500,000 there was a concealed subsidy, which amounted to more than £250,000. He referred us to the Air Votes. In our opinion, merely to refer us to the Air Votes and the Estimates is not good enough in connection with a Bill of such importance as this. We desire that the whole question of subsidies which is involved in this Clause should be fully debated and that the Committee should have a full opportunity of debating that issue when it is before us. Merely to refer us to the Air Votes in regard to concealed subsidies is not sufficient.
We are proposing to reduce the Vote back to the original amount of £1,000,000. When subsidies for civil aviation were first accepted by the British Parliament, the amount of £1,000,000 was voted by this House to cover a period of 10 years. In the discussion on that amount the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) used a phrase that has been so often quoted, about civil aviation beginning to fly by itself. After all these years it seems that we are further off than ever from civil aviation being able to fly by itself. So far as the importance of civil aviation is concerned, I should like to draw attention to the fact that to a large extent civil aviation is a hobby, and the hobby of people with money. It may be true—I do not doubt the truth of it, in fact I have asserted the truth of it more than once—that the development of civil aviation is important from the national point of view, but I consider, and we on this side consider, that a great amount of justification requires to be brought forward for huge subsidies of this description, increasing by £500,000, by 50 per cent., in this single year because of the development of certain Atlantic services, and so forth.
These huge subsidies ought to carry with them an equivalent amount of national control. Our reason for moving this Amendment is not that we fail to appreciate the importance of civil aviation to the country, but that there are many other things of great importance to the country. The condition of the

people of the country is of some importance. There are many other questions that require consideration from the point of view of expenditure. We were told a day or two ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in order to pay for certain expenses of armaments, the social services of this country have to come to a standstill. We were told that quite definitely. Yet we are to come calmly to the consideration of a Bill of this character which increases by 50 per cent. the subsidies to be given to private aviation, without anything in the nature of adequate Parliamentary control or national responsibility. As I said on the occasion of the Second Reading, we are not worrying ourselves about the division of the spoil. We are not concerned whether Imperial Airways or any other company gets the spoil, but we are concerned about the importance of Government representation upon the board of any company that receives subsidies.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that there is a later Amendment which raises that specific point, and I am proposing to call it. If the hon. Member deals with that point now, it will make it difficult for me to call that Amendment.

Mr. M0NTAGUE: I must accept your Ruling. Our objection to the amount of the subsidy proposed and our reasons for moving the Amendment to reduce the subsidy have been stated and will be further debated before the debates are finished, because the whole question to which I have referred is involved.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment, but I am impelled to do so by speech of the hon. Member. I think he will agree with me that as times goes on and speed is the essence of communications between the different parts of the British Empire, obviously the faster yon go the larger the subsidy must be. It we are content to have obsolete, slow machines, it would be possible to carry on with the present subsidy, but the general feeling of the public as expressed in this House, the feeling against Imperial Airways, is that they do not go fast enough. In order to go faster you must have increased subsidies for the provision of new machines, because as speed increases so much more does the cost increase.
There was one observation made by the hon. Member to which I certainly take exception. He said that he had at the back of his mind a feeling that some of this subsidy of £1,500,000 is going into the pockets of private owners, or what he called people with money whose hobby is flying. Nothing of the sort. The £1,500,000 is purely for air services. It has nothing to do with private flying or with the clubs. There is no country in the world where the private owners and the whole of the air-minded population do more at their own expense for civil aviation than we do in this country.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I did not refer to private flyers. Does the hon. Member seriously consider that the ordinary use of aircraft for travel is not a. question of people with money, and a hobby? Does he imagine that the majority of the people of this country are able to use aircraft?

Mr. EVERARD: The hon. Member does not seem to understand what I mean. The main idea of communication with the Empire is for mail services and quick communication. Everyone can afford, from the poorest to the richest, to send a letter by Imperial Airways to Australia, and certainly they will do it at Christmas time and at other times. Therefore, the development of such services is as important to one member of the public as to another. The hon. Member infers, as I understood him, that this has something to do with rich people, who can afford to own aeroplanes, getting something out of this subsidy. He is entirely wrong. If we compare our position as regard the light aeroplane clubs—I do not wish to speak about them now, because it would be out of order—we get only £15,000 a year, and we are not getting one penny from this subsidy towards private flying. The French find enormous subsidies for the purpose of helping everybody who has a private aeroplane. We do nothing of that sort.
For the hon. Member to suggest that wealthy people who own aeroplanes, and who are endeavouring to play their part in establishing civil aviation, should he held up to scorn, is very unfair. If the hon. Member did not mean that, I am prepared to accept what he says. From the words he used it seemed to me that that was the line of argument he was endeavouring to put forward. I entirely

support the Minister in regard to the increased subsidy. It compares favourably with subsidies given by every other large nation, and it is money which will be much better spent from alI points of view than similiar money spent in other countries, especially in the United States of America, where so much money has been wasted in the past. For these reasons I shall certainly have great pleasure in supporting the Government.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) troubled himself unnecessarily over the remarks of my hon. Friend. I am sure that my hon. Friend had no intention whatever to make any charge against the private owners of aircraft in this country. The Amendment is to reduce from £1,500,000 to £1,000,000 the maximum amount of subsidy payable annually. Every business man in the Committee, and I hope every other hon. Member, knows that when you are fixing an amount in negotiation it is very much easier to go up than to come down. Therefore, if the Minister is good enough to accept the Amendment there will be nothing to prevent him at a later date, should it prove that the Committee was wrong in its estimate of the maximum amount required, in coming again to the House to ask us to increase the amount. If we allow the amount to go at its present figure, we can be certain that the Minister will never come to us with money in hand and say that he has succeeded in accomplishing the policy of Parliament at a less figure than he expected it would cost. It is well to remember that we are voting this sum of £1,500,000 for 17 years.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has an Amendment on the Order Paper on that point. I think he had better take the two points separately.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I had that Amendment in mind and I was not going to run any risk of you ruling that Amendment out of order by expatiating upon it in connection with this Amendment, but it is relevant to mention that we are fixing this subsidy for 17 years and that in that time it is very likely that a less amount will prove to be needed. Let us look at the present time as sufficient for the day. Suppose we fix the amount at £1,000,000. What is going to suffer? Is


the cause of civil aviation going to suffer, or is the only thing that is going to suffer the amount of dividends which will be paid by Imperial Airways? I do not want to dwell on the question of the dividends of Imperial Airways, because I am more concerned with the capital situation of that company. The capital situation of that company is relevant, as to what amount they will require by way of subsidy to strengthen their capital position in the inauguration of the new routes. In that connection the Minister gave us an interesting piece of information. He told us that Imperial Airways were about to go to the public for an increase of capital. The present capital is £700,000 odd. I believe a figure of £2,000,000 was mentioned in the Debate. At any rate, the issue was to be for £1,000,000 and to be issued at a premium. If that be so, Imperial Airways will find itself in possession on the new issue account of £1,000,000 of capital in addition to its increased nominal capital. Surely, that sum will be available for new expenditure on the inauguration of the new air routes?
I am firmly convinced that the cause of civil aviation will not suffer one ton-mile if we reduce the vote to £1,000,000. If we do that, there is nothing to prevent the Minister coming to ask for more. If he does not do so, then the House of Commons will be able to congratulate itself on having saved £500,000 per annum of the taxpayer's money.

5.15 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: I hope the Under-Secretary will not accept the Amendment. If it were carried it would mean that the Atlantic services which are now going to be brought into existence—we hope soon—would be stopped. Already Messrs. Short have two large flying boats getting ready for the service, and if we stop this work it will mean that men will be driven out of employment. That is most undesirable. We want to develop the North Atlantic service. If we do not, the United States will. Also, if the Amendment were accepted it would also mean stopping any investigations into the Southern Atlantic service. At the present time the French and German Government give large subsidies to this service, and it costs this country a sum of £65,000 a year to send letters by German and French air mails

across the Southern Atlantic. I have a letter, from an officer ire the Royal Navy in Argentina, who says that our prestige is suffering in the Argentine because we do not send our mails by British machines. Surely the hon. Member for Islington West (Mr. Montague) does not want our prestige to suffer in this way or to stop all investigations as to the desirability of an air mail service across the Southern Atlantic?

5.18 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: Speaking for myself, I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposal to increase the amount of expenditure on civil aviation. As a matter of national prestige it is necessary for us to be triumphant in the air, and we can attain that only by way of a subsidy. Other countries do it, and we are bound to do the same thing. I want to see civil aviation developed and I have a good deal of sympathy with the increased demand that is being made.

5.19 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) made one or two unfortunate remarks, and perhaps the most unfortunate was that civil aviation is something of a hobby. I cannot believe that that is his considered judgment. It is not something of a hobby which enables us, or will enable us, to send our mails over the whole of the Empire for 1½d.; to send mails to India or East Africa in two and a-half days, to South Africa in four and a-half days or to Australia in six or seven days. These are the projected services of Imperial Airways, if they receive the increased subsidy possible under this Bill. The only justification for reducing the amount of the subsidy proposed would be that we had received a bad service from the £1,000,000 odd which has been spent annually in the last few years. The Bill, of course, actually dives no money to Imperial Airways, but it is generally recognised that this; great company will receive a large proportion of the money which is voted under it. Surely it cannot be alleged that we have received bad service in the past. The ton-mile cost in French lines has been 9s., in the German lines 4s., in the Italian lines 11s., and in Imperial Airways something under 2s.
I have always contended, and I still contend, that in spite of the fact that the


machines owned by Imperial Airways can certainly be considered to be slow to-day, nevertheless they have been run with the greatest efficiency. If increased speed is what we desire then it must be paid for; and at a high cost. Surely the justification for the increase in the subsidy is the startling programme which has been outlined by the Under-Secretary of State. On all Imperial routes there is projected a tremendous acceleration of schedules, a very large increase in the frequency of the services, and the proposal which I have already mentioned, of carrying all first-class Empire mails for 1½d. per half ounce. To my mind that programme if it is carried out, and I have every faith that it will, fully justifies the increased subsidy we are voting. I feel sure that the Under-Secretary will resist the Amendment.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: I listened with care and attention to what hon. Members have said in support of the Amendment and their arguments have left me entirely unconvinced. It seems to me that by granting the maximum amount of subsidy the country could not spend the money in any better way. It is of the utmost importance that this country should have a large and adequate reserve of pilots, and this can best be obtained by developing and extending civil aviation. By granting this comparatively small subsidy the Committee, therefore, will enable civil aviation to be extended and expanded in a way which would not otherwise be possible. I think this is probably the cheapest of all expenditure that is now taking place in connection with defence purposes, and although it is actually for civil aviation it will yet indirectly strengthen our defensive position. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) suggested that it was always easier to come down than to go up, and that the maximum amount voted during the last few years has never been spent. As the money has always been returned there is no justification for the hon. Member putting forward that argument. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) suggested that we should reduce the proposed subsidy because of concealed subsidies for meteorological and other purposes. Surely the meteorological services are not given only for civil aviation but to the country as a whole, and private individuals who listen in to the weather reports know

the weather they are going to have for their picnic the next day. Therefore, that argument does not hold good. I trust that the Under-Secretary will not accept the Amendment.

5.25 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: The projects contemplated in connection with Empire air mail schemes, including the North and South Atlantic routes, entail a subsidy in excess of the £1,000,000 which was voted under the 1930 Subsidy Act. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) shook his head when my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Wakefield) said that when we had not spent up to the limit of the subsidy the balance had been returned to the Treasury. That, of 'course, is the case.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I know that there have been years in which the subsidy has not been fully spent. I was speaking of some years ago. The Government instead of a repayment of cash took deferred shares, which have never yielded any dividend, and never will.

Sir P. SASSOON: When the limit of the subsidy was fixed in 1930 the services then contemplated were, of course, very much less than the immense increases which are contemplated to-day. When one thinks of the proposed increase in the programme and remembers that we are only asking for 50 per cent. more subsidy, the Committee, I think, will say that we have been fairly modest. It must be remembered that this figure is a gross figure. It does not include the contributions from the other Governments of the Empire, which will be returned to us in the form of grants-in-aid, and will result in a considerable reduction in United Kingdom expenditure. The hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) said that the ideal put before us by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that commercial aviation should fly by itself, was further off than ever. I do not agree with the hon. Member at all. The schemes which are contemplated show that there is an eight-fold increase in the ton-mileage capacity of the services as compared with two years ago, when the outline proposals were drawn up, with an increase in subsidy of only £30,000 on the average. I think it is fair to say that while the. amount and extent of the services have


gone up each year, proportionately the subsidy has decreased. I hope the Committee will on reflection think that the £1,500,000 is a fair sum.

5.29 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I should like to support the Under-Secretary of State. I was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) that a reduction of £500,000 in the subsidy would not affect the development of civil aviation. The object of the money is to get out a programme, and he will see that the amount cannot exceed £1,500,000. That does not mean that the £1,500,000 must necessarily be spent, but that it shall not exceed that amount. If there is to be £1,500,000 in order to develop a programme—and we do want to develop a big programme—of civil aviation, it would surely be very much easier to do it with the £1,500,000 in the Bill itself, instead of bringing it in later on, as was suggested by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen. Possibly there may have been something a little more subtle in his arguments; it may be that he wants to reduce the amount now in order later on to show that there has not been a success and that private enterprise has not worked, and possibly he would then

be able to bring in a national scheme in order that it should be taken over by the Government.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain how it is private enterprise with a subsidy of £1,500,000 from the Government?

Sir W. BRASS: It is private enterprise because most of the money is provided by private enterprise. Private enterprise is something which is run by private enterprise and not, run by the Government.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: It is public money run by private enterprise.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The only point before the Committee now is whether the subsidy should be £1,500,000 or £1,000,000.

Sir W. BRASS: I entirely agree with you. I did not raise the point myself; it was the hon. Member opposite who did so. I think it is most important that we should support the Minister on this occasion and that the amount should not be £1,000,000, but £1,500,000.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The House divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 92.

Division No. 197.]
AYES.
[4.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crltchley, A.
Keeling, E. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Crooke, J. S.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)


Albery, I. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Culverwell, C. T.
Kirkpatrick. W. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Anderson Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Donner, P. W.
Latham, Sir P.


Assheton. R.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Leckie, J. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Drewe, C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lees-Jones, J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Balniel, Lord
Dunglass, Lord
Levy, T.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Eales, J. F.
Lewis, O.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liddall, W S.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Ellis, Sir G.
Lindsay, K. M.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Liewellin. Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. M.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lloyd, G. W.


Blair, Sir R.
Errington, E.
Locker-Lampson. Comdr. O. S.


Blindell, Sir J.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Boulton, W. W.
Everard, W. L.
Mabane, W, (Huddersfleld)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Findlay, Sir E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Furness, S. N.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G, E. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maclay. Hon. J. P.


Brass, Sir W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Macquisten. F. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Magnay, T.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Granville, E. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Bull, B. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Butler, R. A.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Markham. S. F.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cary, R. A.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guy, J. C. M.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hanbury. Sir C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hannah, I. C.
Moreing, A. C.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hartington, Marquess of
Morgan, R. H.


Channon, H.
Haslam. Sir J. (Bolton)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Chapman, A. (Ruthergien)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Clarke, F. E.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cobb. Sir C. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Munro, F.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Nicolson, Han. H. G.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Patrick, C. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Peake, O.


Courtauid, Major J. S.
Jackson, Sir H.
Penny, Sir G.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
James, Wing-Commander A, W.
Petherick, M.




Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Titchfield. Marquess of


Pilkington, R.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Touche, G. C.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smithers Sir W.
Wakef[...]d, W. W,


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Reid, D. D. (Down)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Remer, J. R.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L
Warrender, Sir V.


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T, R.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Runclman, Rt. Hon. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Storey, S.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchln)


Salmon, Sir I.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Salt, E. W.
Stauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Samuel, Sir A. M, (Farnham)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Sanderson, Sir F B.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Sandys, E, D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE Ayes—


Savory, Servington
Sutcliffe, H.
Major George Davies and Captain


Scott, Lord William
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Waterhouse.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Montague, F.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.


Barnes, A. J.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Batey, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Benson, G,
Hardle, G. D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rowson, G.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Chater, D.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Cluse, W. S.
Holdsworth, H.
Shinwell, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Holland, A.
Simmonds, O. E.


Cocks, F. S.
Hopkin, D.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Compton, J.
Jagger, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. sir Stafford
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T,
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Daggar, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sorensen, R. W.


Dalton, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kelly, W. T.
Tate, Mavis C.


Day, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leslie, J. R.
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Logan, O. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Lunn, W.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGhee, H. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mander, G. le M.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marklew, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D, R.
Messer, F.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.




Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Donner, P. W.


Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Albery, I. J.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Duncan, J, A. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Dunglass, Lord


Aske, Sir R. W.
Channon, H.
Eales, J. F


Assheton, R.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clarke, F. E.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Ballour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Balnlel, Lord
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Errington, E.


Barclay- Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir C. S.
Erskine Hill, A. G.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Colfox, Major W. P.
Everard, W. L.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Findlay, Sir E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsrm'h)
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Furness, S. N.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fyfe, D. P. W.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bernays, R. H.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Blair, Sir R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gluckstein. L. H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wlrral)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Critchley, A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Crooke, J. S.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Brass, Sir W.
Crooksnank, Capt. H. F. C.
Grimston, R. V.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G,
Crowder, J. F. E,
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Culverwell, C. T.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Bull, B. B.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)
Guy, J. C. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
De Chair, S. S.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Cary, R. A.
Denville, Alfred
Hannah, I. C.




Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Simmonds, O. E.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Markham, S. F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Smithers, Sir W.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Holmes, J. S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Morgan, R. H,
Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J, H.
Spens, W. P.


Jackson, Sir H.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


James, Wing-Commander A, W.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Keeling, E. H.
Munro, P.
Storey, S.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
O'Neill. Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark N.)


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lamb, Sir J Q.
Patrick, C. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Peake, O.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Latham, Sir P.
Penny, Sir G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Leckle, J. A.
Petherick, M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Plckthorn, K. W. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Lees-Jones, J.
Plikington, R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Levy, T.
Ralkes, H. V. A, M.
Touche, G. C.


Lewis, O.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Liddall, W. S.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Lindsay, K. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, W. W.


Lloyd, G. W.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Locker- Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Remer, J. R.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Lyons, A. M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Warrender, Sir V.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Macdonald, Capt. p. (Isle of Wight)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Salt, E. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Macnamara, Capt. J, R. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Macquisten, F. A.
Savery, Servington
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Magnay, T.
Scott, Lord William
Wragg, H.


Maitland, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Makins. Brig.-Gen. E.
Shakespeare, G. H.



Mander, G. le M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel




Llewellin.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grenfell, D. R.
Muff, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Naylor, T. E.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Groves, T. E.
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Batey, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Ritson, J.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson. G.


Burke, W. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Sexton, T. M.


Chater, D.
Holland, A.
Shinwell, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jagger, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Compton, J
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, A, C. (Shipley)
Stewart. W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphllly)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Kelly, W. T.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Lee, F.
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leslie, J. R.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G,
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lunn, W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
McGhee, H. G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
MacNeill, Weir, L.



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marklew, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 3, to leave out "fifty-three," and to insert "forty-one."
Hon. Members will have observed that there is a number of Amendments dealing with the dates to which this subsidy shall extend, and it would appear that my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) and myself have almost reached in our minds the same date as the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonei Moore-Brabazon) and the hon. Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate). In fact, if we moved one year forward and they moved one year back, thus splitting the difference, we should be in agreement. May I say at once to the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Lady that if it would assist them in supporting us in the Division lobby, we should have no difficulty in arriving at an accommodation on that point.
The object of the Amendment I am moving is to limit the time during which this subsidy shall be paid, and I think there is a great deal to be said for that. The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) had a little skirmish during the discussion on the last Amendment with the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), with regard to the question how far this is private enterprise and how far it is pauper enterprise. By limiting the time we should be more certain that private enterprise would not be treated as a pauper for a greater time than it stands in need of public assistance, and it seems to me that that is a highly desirable thing to secure. Another great advantage that would be obtained if the Amendment were accepted is that it would enable the Government in charge of the country immediately after the next General Election, if this Parliament runs its full length of time, to be in a position to review the situation. On the assumption that the Cabinet meetings that were held yesterday all over the county of Surrey by various Noble Lords—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order, Order!

Mr. EDE: I was going to suggest, as did my hon. Friend, that they are entirely in the air and never likely to fructify. Assuming that this Parliament

lasts until 1940, I suggest that the date should be made 1941 for the very good reason that the much more efficient and proper Government that is then likely to control the country would be really master in its own house with regard to this particular matter. Can it be suggested that the world will continue for much longer this mad competition between nations, conducted on a basis of subsidies, with regard to this and other public services? The argument for this subsidy is that other nations give such subsidies. Everybody deplores the fact but nobody seems to have the strength of mind to stand up against this fatal tendency on the part of all nations. But I strongly believe that hard facts will compel one nation after another to reverse the policy which has been pursued during recent years, and that we ought not to pledge ourselves to continue this subsidy for the tremendous length of time proposed in the Bill, if there is the slightest possible hope of this service being able to stand on its own feet any sooner.
I hope the Committee will not agree to such a long period of subsidy. I do not think any of the subsidy proposals which have hitherto been before Parliament have covered such a long time and I do not see why this subsidy should be treated on a different basis from others. It is understood that the service is likely to develop and that it ha s a future before it as a means of international transport. [An HON. MEMBER: "Or behind it."] I have known some peopIe whose futures have been behind them and they do not sit very far from me. They still cherish hopes which are only delusions. I suggest that it would be in the best interests of the State that this subsidy should be reviewed as soon as is reasonably possible, and the date suggested in the Amendment is one that might he seriously considered by the Committee.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I have been very careful riot to introduce a controversial note into anything I have said this afternoon. One reason was that I wished to avoid antagonising the Minister who would, I hoped, be inclined to accept some other Amendments which we had in the Paper. This is one of those Amendments. A great many arguments can he advanced in favour of it but I do not propose to weary the Committee


by putting them all forward. It has also behind it what I think influences the Government a great deal more, if I may say so inoffensively, namely weight of numbers. Hon. Members in every part of the Committee have put their names to this or similar Amendments. We are not tied to a reduction of the period by 12 years. Our Amendment is in two parts. It proposes to leave out 1953 and to insert 1941 and I shall address myself for the moment to the first part of that proposal, because I believe that on that part of the Amendment we can get a very large body of support in the Committee. If the Minister finds that to be the case, we are prepared to withdraw this Amendment in order that he may substitute some compromise date if he feels disposed to do so.
The hon. Baronet was almost vehement, at least as vehement as I have ever seen him at that Box, in asserting that civil aviation was making rapid strides. He became almost angry with an hon. Friend of mine for asserting that civil aviation had made little or no progress. I am prepared to admit that he is right and that civil aviation has made important progress in the last 18 years which is the relevant period. Can any hon. Member casting his mind back to 1918 say that, at that date, we could prudently have fixed a basis of subsidy for the following 18 years. That would have been a farcical proposition, both in the light of the probabilities at the time and in the light of the developments which have taken place since. What is going to happen in the next 18 years? I believe that the Under-Secretary would be the most dejected man in this Committee if he thought that in 18 years time civil aviation would not be a profitable proposition without any State subsidy. Things are moving along those lines. We hear of almost revolutionary developments in civil aviation, any one of which might at any time enable it to cross the narrow line between payability and nonpayability and make all the difference in the matter of subsidy. Yet we propose to commit ourselves to an arrangement covering a period of 18 years with regard to a service in which there are such possibilities of speedy development. I hope the Minister will meet us and that if he does not meet us, hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will support us in trying to get a reduction of the period.
I mention one or two possible lines of development which might result in making civil aviation, to use a trite and hackneyed aphorism "fly by itself." I do not wish to embark on technicalities, but as one long connected with flying I take an interest in recent developments and the geodetic system and the new petrols may make an enormous difference in the future. There is also the question of increased traffic which is of vital importance. I believe that certain services between London and Paris are paying at the present time. Who can say that in 18 years' time the trans-Atlantic service and the services to Australia and India, even at the present rate of progress, will not he paying for themselves 4 There are even more important possibilities. War may come or on the other hand assured peace may come. Either contingency would upset all our calculations with regard to this subsidy and the length of time for which it ought to be granted. If discussion in this Committee means anything, I hope that the Minister, who has not yet signed these contracts and is not committed to them—if he is committed to them he has done something wrong—is prepared to go into these questions and to agree to a period at any rate less than the 18 years which is here demanded. If he cannot do so, then I hope that hon. Members, acting in no party spirit, will help us in imposing this Amendment on the Government.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: If there is one point on which the Government and their critics are agreed, it is that the period of time suggested should not be longer than can be shown to be reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Obviously it is difficult to fix exactly the right period of time. The defence by the Government of the proposal in the Bill amounts to this—that they have carefully considered the matter and in their opinion the time limit here suggested is the shortest that is reasonable. The Under-Secretary on one occasion even took refuge behind that committee of anonymous persons to whom he resorts when particularly hard pressed. I think, however, that now, in the Committee stage, it is reasonable to ask the Government to say on what grounds they have come to their conclusion. In essense it is a mathematical


problem, the principal factor in which is the question of amortisation.
In order to determine the proper period I imagine that it would be necessary, first, to say in respect of the machines over what period it would be necessary to write off their cost. The same factor would have to be determined in respect of buildings to be erected on the aerodromes. I do not think the question of land would fairly enter into the calculations because, as far as the company would acquire freehold land, that land would be situated in or near some centre of population and would therefore be likely to rise rather than fall in value. If there was any question of acquiring leasehold land the amortisation figure could be very exactly ascertained. Having determined those rates of depreciation, the next process would be to determine the proportion of the outlay of the company which would be devoted under these various heads—how much in respect of machines, to be written off at such a rate, and how much in respect of buildings, to be written of at such a rate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is now going rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. LEWIS: I am suggesting the only basis on which it is possible to arrive at a definite period of years. I am seeking to get from the Under-Secretary a statement of the reasons why a certain term of years has been proposed. I was explaining the only method which occurred to me by which such a computation could be made, but I had practically completed my argument. and I do not press it any further. I may summarise my submission in a sentence. I ask the Under-Secretary, when he seeks to support the proposition in the Bill, not to put us aside with the bare assertion that as the result of considerations unknown to us he has arrived at a given period but to tell us how he has arrived at that figure.

5.58 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Frome (Mrs. Tate) and myself differs by two years from the Amendment which is before the Com-

mittee, and we note that we have the permission of hon. Members opposite to vote in the same Lobby with them on this matter if we should so desire.

Mr. EDE: Not merely permission but invitation.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I would not like to allow that invitation to pass without a word of thanks for it. But we raise this question for a different reason from that of hon. Members opposite. It is quite futile to give a subsidy without fixing a certain period of time. The companies which undertake this work will have to solve great problems—problems which are not to be solved in one or two years. It will be necessary for these companies to be able to look very far ahead, and I think it is only right, if you are going to subsidise an undertaking like Imperial Airways, that you should do so for a fairly long term of years. Then they could build upon that and get going.
That is quite true, but there is another point to consider. What are we giving to the world by stimulating this industry? We are giving a method of transportation which has the advantage of speed over every other form of transport, but in the end it has got to succeed or pay on the basis of whether or not it can earn money. If you lay down a term of subsidy for too many years, it seems to me that it will deprive the runners of transport services and also the manufacturers of aeroplanes of that very incentive to get costs down which is, to my mind, the most important thing with regard to civil aviation. I have seen big developments, but I have regretted always the close connection between the military and the civil sides. I have never accused our Government of that, though I have accused other Governments of it, but from the point of view of deciding this particular problem, they have never shown the divorcement which they were justified in showing. The Diesel engine is more economic than the petrol engine, and yet what incentive has there been for the makers of engines of the runners of transport services to indulge in that more economic form of power plant? None at all. If you are promising a subsidy for a long terms of years. nobody will attack this problem from that important angle of economics. If we pass this Bill—I


am not opposing it; I only want information as to what are the reasons for choosing this figure—people will not attack the problem, because they will know perfectly well that civil aviation will carry on by virtue of the subsidy which this Government is going to give it, which other Governments will give it, and which Governments throughout the world will give it. That, to my mind, is unwholesome. I am not really opposing this. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman is not doing the right thing, but in my heart I would like to see all aviation throughout the country deprived of every form of subsidy that exists and to let the technicians fight ab initio to see whether they could run a form of transport which would pay without a subsidy. I would join with the Mover of the Amendment in asking the Government to give us the reason, first of all, for the length of time chosen and then actually why they chose this particular year.

6.4 p.m.

Colonel ROPNER: I would hesitate to disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Colonel MooreBrabazon) on anything connected with the air. He holds a very honourable position in the flying world. He is the oldest pilot in the country, and I am possibly the youngest, but I would venture to dispute his assertion that the Deisel engine is more efficient than the petrol engine.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: More economical.

Colonel ROPNER: I would still dispute the statement. Over long distances it may be more economical, but over short distances—

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we cannot allow the merits of the Deisel engine to be discussed on this Amendment.

Colonel ROPNER: I must admit that I rather anticipated you would interrupt me, Sir Charles. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment seemed to me to presume that subsidies are being given by all nations to their air lines in a competitive spirit, and with no thought of the requirements of modern transport. It may be that there is a spirit of competition and that one nation does compare its achievements with those of

another, but I feel certain that the Under-Secretary of State would agree with me when I say that very largely the subsidies which are given for air transport are a necessity of the times. I cannot agree with those who have said that there is any immediate prospect of air lines being self-supporting. So long as there is this constant demand for increased speed, you are compelling Governments to subsidise their air lines.
This Amendment proposes to reduce the period from 15 years to five years. We have already been told that the decision to guarantee the subsidy for 15 years was taken after very careful consideration by the Government, and from what knowledge I have of flying, of the speed of development which may be anticipated, of the necessity for a very complex and extensive ground organisation, and of the development and acceleration which have been promised us by Imperial Airways, I believe that 15 years is not too long a period. The capital of Imperial Airways to-day is, I believe, £650,000, and we have been told that they propose to increase their capital to £2,000,000. They are under the necessity of going to the public for £1,500,000 of new money. Can anyone believe for a moment that that money would be forthcoming from the public unless Imperial Airways were assured of a long-term contract from the Government 4 My own view is that on account of the expansion of Imperial Airways itself and of the necessity for encouraging other companies to commence services of an extensive nature on other routes, the Bill should remain as it is and that the Minister should oppose the Amendment.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I think the last statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) shows what we are doing so far as the subsidy is concerned. I do not want it to be taken that I am saying anything against Imperial Airways. It is with the question of subsidy that I am concerned. When the hon. and gallant Member speaks of a company that is coming to the public for £1,500,000 capital—I think it should be £2,000,000 in fact—and that in order to get that the company must have a subsidy of £600,000 for 17 years, it shows what it means in terms of subsidy. I want to appeal to the Minister


to shorten the period. I am not married either to 1941 or 1946, but there is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Colonel MooreBrabazon) said. I have no doubt that the Minister thinks he is putting in this period in order that Imperial Airways or any other company might work out a long-term programme, but I can also see the force of the argument that a company which is going to pay a dividend during the whole of that period ought of itself to be apt to show some enterprise and initiative and not merely want a subsidy of this amount for so long a period. I would ask the Minister to substitute some date other than 1953, as in the Bill, because I cannot see how 17 years are necessary. When one thinks of the tremendous development that has taken place in the last 17 years, it may well be true that within a much shorter time than 17 years aviation will be a paying concern without any subsidy, and I think we should have a much shorter period in the Bill. The people of this country ought not to be called upon to subsidise anything that can be shown at any time to be a very paying proposition, and I beg the Minister to accept one or other of the Amendments.

6.11 p.m.

Major HILLS: The hon. Member for South Bradford (Mr. Holdsworth) is always consistent. He opposes a subsidy altogether, which is quite a reasonable attitude, and I go a long amount of the way with him. I want to see civil aviation pay without a subsidy, and if I did not conceive that to be possible, I should not be supporting this Bill, because I do not look forward to an indefinite subsidy, and I certainly do not want one given. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallassey (colonel Moore Brabazon), to whom I always listen as a pupil to his master, said —and I entirely agree with his statement of the case—that a subsidy was whether a company could earn money without being subsidized. He wants a subsidy for either seven or five years, but I want of money to build up an air service, and you want the company that runs that service to be look a long way

ahead. I know that we may differ to the amount of a year here or a year there, but nobody, I think, would call five or seven years sufficient time to give the company, whatever that company might be. They have to look ahead and to spend money, and a very large amount of money.
How will you get the best chances of success? Safety comes a very long way first in the list of requirements, and for that do you not want long period and the very best machines that you can build? I put with that, regularity of service and a number of advertised routes that are completed and operating, and there again do you not want the very best service Lastly, I put cheapness. I believe that you can only get these things by giving a long time to the company in which to work. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey spoke as though a long term would mean that the company that got it would go to sleep. There is no chance, it seems to me, judging from our experience in this House, of Imperial Airways going to sleep.

Mrs. TATE: Is there any chance of their waking up?

Major HILLS: As long as Imperial Airways exist, I suppose criticism of them will continue, and, of course, T welcome those criticisms. I do not think that there is much chance of their sleeping. The only obstacle that I see to a civil aviation which pays for itself is the demand for too much speed. I foresee a time when the service of one country or another may pay on its own basis, and I foresee also that there may be a demand in the Parliament of that country to reach the speed attained by countries which do not look for a self-paying aviation. A great many countries recognise civil aircraft as an ancillary to their military aviation. Except for that consideration, I think that we can look forward' to the time when civil aviation will pay for itself. It will only get that by having a fair chance over a Jai,: period of time. We may argue whether 12, 15 or 20 years is the best period, but I submit that five or seven years is far too short. We shall get a civil aviation which pays for itself only by giving the subsidy over a fair period.

6.16 p.m.

Mrs. TATE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) is very anxious to see aviation paying for itself. I submit that it is difficult to say what is or is not economical. It depends on what we are getting in return for what we pay. We cannot afford to be without an efficient commercial aviation. We can afford it less than any other country. If the period of years is shortened from 15 to five, there is nothing to prevent the House at the end of five years extending the period. If we now vote this colossal sum of money for 15 years without any question, we are seriously delegating our responsibility. No one can suggest that either this House or the country would allow our commercial aviation to fall too far behind the commercial aviation of other countries, especially when the country becomes educated to the imperative necessity of the air to ourselves and the Empire. If we now vote this sum for 15 years, there is a great danger that we shall fall asleep and lag behind other countries. It is a very good thing for the country that this House has to be re-elected every five years. The country has had the sense to send back a National Government, and we should have the sense at the end of five years to know whether civil aviation continued to need a subsidy. I think that at least we should be able to judge not only what the companies which we have subsidised have been doing during that time, but what other companies have been doing and be able to compare what has been going on.
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) stressed the fact that present-day invention was so remarkable that no one can tell what may have occurred in five years. That is the crux of the whole problem. The internal combustion engine has completely revolutionised our lives and our outlook, even the outlook of lives of people like the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon. None of us can say, when we are dealing with an invention which moves with such astonishing rapidity and which is still in its infancy, what changes may take place, and it is a terrible thing to give this subsidy without any question for 15 years. There is nothing to prevent Imperial Airways from planning their schemes for a long period ahead, because the House would never interfere with

them if they were doing what the House-and the country wished them to do.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: The discussion of this Amendment would have been valuable if for no other reason than that, with the exception of two or three hon. Members who seem to proced on the basis that Imperial Airways can do no wrong, the Committee seems unanimous that the period of years proposed in the Bill is somewhat extended. The discussion has been somewhat academic because, as a matter of fact, the Government are committed, and committed up to the hilt, to Imperial Airways to subsidise them for this period. Therefore, it leads one to this consideration, that in future—

Mr. GARRO JONES: The hon. Member has made a statement which will have a somewhat serious effect on the Minister's answer. Is he speaking with any knowledge or authority when he states that the Government have prejudged the opinion of the Committee and. committed themselves to a period of 15 years?

Mr. SIMMONDS: Obviously, there is no formal agreement with Imperial Airways until the Committee have approved it, but it is well known—and I am making no breach of confidence when I say it—that there is a gentleman's agreement with Imperial Airways for this period. Do hon. Members imagine that Imperial Airways would be expending this vast sum of money in aircraft and flying boats if they have not the most definite understanding from the Government that this agreement would be implemented and put in a formal agreement?

Mr. EDE: Are we to understand that the hon. Gentleman asserts that there is such an agreement between the firm and the Government as would lead to a charge of breach of faith if this Committee uses its own discretion with reference to the date and shortens the period?

Mr. SIMMONDS: As I said, my understanding of the situation is that there is a gentleman's agreement between the Government and Imperial Airways upon which Imperial Airways have thought it a prudent commercial risk to proceed with the construction of aircraft for these services, and I do not doubt for a


moment that if the Committee were not to agree with my right lion. Friend in this matter, Imperial Airways would have a substantial claim for compensation against the Government.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May we again ask, in view of that statement, whether the hon. Member, who seems to be speaking with some authority, actually speaks with knowledge, because, if so, a very important constitutional point has arisen?

Mr. SIMMONDS: I have been perfectly frank with the Committee in this matter, and the position should be perfectly obvious to any hon. Member who examines it. Here we have this company, highly skilled in the commercial art—and I do not criticise them for that reason—constructing these vast fleets of aircraft, unprecedented in size, which many hon. Members have inspected at Rochester. Is it not obvious that the company, before they went forward with the agreement to construct these aircraft, had some understanding with the Government that the Government would use all their authority to persuade the Committee and the House to approve the payment of these subsidies? That is all I say.

Mr. JOHNSTON: That is not the statement which the hon. Member made. What he said in specific terms was that, if the terms of this Bill were not implemented, and if this Committee in the exercise of its discretion did not agree to this period of years, Imperial Airways would have a substantial claim for compensation against the State. That is either a statement of fact or it is not. We ought to know whether the hon. Member speaks with authority on this matter.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I am honoured that the right hon. Gentleman should value my opinion so greatly. I express it as my opinion that, if this period were reduced now, Imperial Airways would have a claim for some compensation—

Mr. ED E: The hon. Member said "substantial claim."

Mr. SIMMONDS: I will repeat the word "substantial" if it affords any pleasure to the hon. Member. I believe that, with that vast construction, they would have some claim to substantial

compensation. That is my opinion. The matter is clearly hypothetical at this stage, and I cannot see that hon. Members opposite should take any exception to my expressing my opinion. I voice it because I believe that the position in which we now find ourselves should warn us that for the future, when we are relying upon a vast subsidised concern such as Imperial Airways to develop some national service, we should see that in due time, before one agreement runs out, we discussed the forthcoming agreement. That is what we have not done in this case. Thus I believe I are right in saying that the Government have largely had to take, in regard to the question of period, the terms that Imperial Airways were willing to accept. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Of course they have. Let us be perfectly frank about this.
I believe that the Government have let this matter run all too long, and the one event which wakened the whole nation to the situation was the McRobertson race to Australia, when it was shown, not only by the British Comet machine, but by the American Douglas machine, that speeds vastly in excess of those now being achieved on the Empire services, and of those proposed in the revised Empire services were possible if only a modern conception of air transport were adopted. After that there was a scramble to do something, and as a result of that scramble there was clearly only one outcome, namely, that as there was no time to consider the claims of any new company for these accelerated and multiplied Empire services, we had to re-subsidise Imperial Airways. Frankly, if I had had a free choice in the matter, I should have granted a new subsidy to Imperial Air-ways—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This question seems to me hardly to arise on this Amendment. We are now dealing with the period of subsidy and not with the principle of subsidy.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I was mentioning that en, passant on the principle of re-subsidising Imperial Airways. When we have to consider the period of subsidy agreements we should discuss them at an early date before the old subsidy agreements run out, so that we may make fair and competitive terms with the company we are proposing to subsidise.

6.30 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I think I had better start my speech by dealing with the remarks of the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), and I think I can make it plain to the Committee that if this Bill does not go through we fall back on the 1930 agreement, which takes us as far as 1940, so that the expenditure on ships which are now being built by Imperial Airways will, of course, be utilised for the next four or five years. As regards having given our word to Imperial Airways that they would have this service, of course that is not the case—there is not an agreement; but, as I said on the Finance Resolution the other day, the Government decided two years ago to entrust the operation of Empire airways, including the North Atlantic service, to Imperial Airways. There is no secret about that. The idea is that if this Bill goes through that agreement should run until 1953. If this Bill does not go through the agreement will anyhow run till 1940. I think that is perfectly clear. I made no secret of the fact, in my speech on the Financial Resolution, that the approved policy of the Government was that Imperial Airways should have the operation of the Empire routes, and I even gave the sum, which I said would be in the neighbourhood of £600,000. I think that is perfectly clear.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The point that worried us was that when the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) was speaking he said that if the Bill were not approved by Parliament Imperial Airways would have a substantial claim to compensation. Secondly, he said that the Government had to take Imperial Airways' terms. On those two points we should have a clear and explicit disclaimer from the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I think it ought to be made crystal clear to the Committee that we are not only not debarred from rejecting this Bill as a, whole but that we are not by implication debarred from snaking any alteration in any particular terms in the agreement. Everybody knows that there must have been an outlined agreement, but at the moment we are discussing whether we are at liberty to reduce the period to five or 10 years, and we are entitled to an explicit, unequivocal assurance from the Minister

that the Committee are entitled, if they so desire, to reduce this period of years without being charged with having wrecked the whole Bill. I hope the Minister will be very clear on that point.

Sir P. SASSOON: Parliament will have every opportunity of agreeing to this plan or not. I do not see—

Mr. GARRO JONES: We are at the moment discussing an Amendment to reduce the period of years for which the subsidy is to be guaranteed by the Government. It has been stated that the Committee's views on that matter have been prejudged and that we are not at liberty to amend the plan as a whole. Everything that the Minister said in his explanation had reference to the Bill. He said that if the Committee did not pass the Bill we should revert to a certain arrangement. We are not discussing whether or not we shall pass the Bill, but whether the Committee are at liberty to reduce the period of years, and we wish to know whether there is anything —absolutely or by implication—in the agreement with Imperial Airways, or the outlined agreement, to prevent us from making a change.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. EDE: May I remind the Minister that the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) said in his well-informed speech that our discussion on this point was entirely academic, in his opinion, because if he varied the date the company would have ground for action which would entitle them to substantial compensation from the Government. In reply to a question which I put to him, he said that they would be able not merely to charge the Government with a breach of faith but would be entitled to this financial compensation. What we are entitled to know is whether we are in a position to vary the terms of the agreement if we so desire, or whether a pledge has been given on the assumption that the Government control the House and we merely register their opinions with our discussion which, in the words of the hon. Member, is entirely academic.

Sir P. SASSOON: I think I can make the situation quite clear. It is perfectly open to the Committee this afternoon, or at any time while we are discussing this Clause, to reduce the date without there being any question of a breach of contract on the part of the Government.

Mr. LEACH: Without compensation?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am talking about the date. As far as compensation is concerned, if there were any, it would be entirely on the question of the fleet. Imperial Airways had to make certain preparations in view of the scheme which was decided upon two years ago. Therefore, they had to order, as the Committee know, a fleet of boats. They therefore ordered some boats, and if this Bill were not put through those boats would be used on the routes they are now flying till the end of 1940. In so far as they would not be able to use those boats on their existing routes we would reimburse them for any loss they had incurred, under powers which we already possess under the 1930 Act. There is no question of having entered into a contract or having to compensate them if the Committee turn down the Bill. The Committee are perfectly free to reduce the date by the three years suggested from the benches opposite or the five years suggested from the benches behind me, if they choose to do so, and there would be no question of breach of contract of any sort or kind.

Mr. J0HNSTON: For the fourth time will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly and explicitly whether there is any truth whatever in the statement made by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) to the effect that the Government had to take Imperial Airways' terms? That is a statement of fact which he made. Is it true or is it not?

Sir P. SASSOON: There is absolutely no truth in it.

Mr. H0LDSWORTH: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what powers under the Act of 1930 would come into force in the circumstances he mentioned?

Sir P. SASSOON: We have powers to pay £1.000,000 a year up to 1940.

Mr. SI MMONDS: I have been seriously misquoted by several hon. Members. The bon, Member opposite, for instance, asked whether the statement that Imperial Airways had forced the terms was correct. When he reads my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that I did not mention "terms," in

general, I mentioned "period"—I think he will see that I used that word. So far as the question of compensation is concerned, I think the Under-Secretary has shown that there clearly will have to be some compensation if, after 1940, these flying boats are rendered useless.

6.40 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to make the position as regards compensation somewhat clearer, because this is a very grave matter indeed. We are now being asked to approve a new scheme of subsidies to, among other people, Imperial Airways. The right hon. Gentleman has now told us that this scheme was approved by the Government two years ago.

Sir P. SASSOON: Not the scheme.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Well, the right hon. Gentleman told us that this scheme—I do not say in all its details—was approved to this extent, that Imperial Airways were led legitimately, by the approval, to proceed with the construction of a number of flying boats, and we are told that they will be entitled to compensation because they proceeded with the construction of those boats, if this scheme does not receive the approval of Parliament. That means to say that the Government have so conducted themselves as to commit the country to expenditure upon a service for which they have had no approval from this House. That raises a very serious constitutional point indeed, and cannot, I submit, be lightly brushed aside by the right hon. Gentleman. What we want to know is this: Did the Government give authorisation to Imperial Airways, prior to the consent of this House being obtained, to embark upon an expenditure for which, in the event of this scheme not being passed, they would be entitled to be reimbursed, either partially or wholly? As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman has already told us that the Government did do that, that they did encourage and authorise Imperial Airways to embark upon expenditure.
If the Government are going to do that this House will sever know where it stands. It will have Bills presented to it or demands made upon it backed by such a statement as was made by the


hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds), which seems to be substantially accurate, that unless the House accepts the scheme there will be a large bill to pay, a bill based on the authorisation given by the Government. In those circumstances it is not difficult to see that the Government are compelled to accept that which Imperial Airways insist upon as the terms for implementing this agreement, and we find that instead of their being faithful stewards of the resources of this country the Government are extravagantly spending them without any authority whatsoever. There could not conceivably be a better reason for reducing this period than that we should be making it quite certain that in future the Government would not embark upon understandings as regards expenditure to be undertaken by private enterprise until it is ascertained from this House or this Committee that they have authority so to proceed.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: When the right hon. Gentleman rose to reply I understood that he said that he proposed first to explain the speech made by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). Since then he has been interrupted. Am I to understand that he clues not propose to pay any attention to any part of this Debate before the hon. Member for Duddeston spoke? Some of us asked whether he could give some explanation of the period of time suggested. Are we to understand that he does not propose to reply to any of these questions?

6.44 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I would say, in the first place, that the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), when he began his remarks, was rather on the optimistic side in saying that this was one of the Amendments which he hoped we were going to accept.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I am not expecting to have our term of years accepted, but I am certainly expecting that some reduction will be offered.

Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. Member went on to say that he thought the period was too long, because anyone looking back over the past 18 years would see the immense strides in aviation, and we could not know what the future

might hold, and he really gave the impression that on the whole he was not in favour of a subsidy. Of course, we all agree with him there. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) on the last occasion will be remembered, in which he said that subsidies were a confounded nuisance. They are a confounded nuisance, and it would be far better if civil aviation could carry on by itself, but when we look round the world we see that enormous amounts of subsidy are being paid by other countries, we are forced to pay subsidies ourselves; yet we can be glad to think that we are getting so much more for our subsidy than other countries are getting. I hope that the period in which civil aviation will fly by itself will come to us more quickly than it comes to other people.
The 15-year period is only five years more than is given in the 1930 agreement, and this is a very much bigger scheme. Air France, the French competitor of Imperial Airways, has an agreement now for 15 years. Although the period covers 17 years, we have no intention of effecting an agreement with Imperial Airways for longer than 15 years. I think it has been said before, that, owing to the vastly increased nature of this scheme, a very large sum of money will have to be found, and it is only fair to give a certain security of tenure. Imperial Airways also, owing to the vastly increased nature of the scheme, will have to spend a great deal of money on ground organisation. Having regard to the facts, I think it might be agreed by the Committee to-day that 15 years is a reasonable period. His Majesty's Government have arrived at this conclusion after considering all the facts of the situation, and they consider that it is a fair compromise among the various conflicting factors which have to be taken into account in dealing with a question of this sort.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel MooreBrabazon) said—and I was entirely in agreement with him—that companies have to look far ahead. He went on to say that civil aviation had not benefited in association with military aviation. It is not in order for me to deal with that point, but I could give countless instances of the benefits that civil aviation has derived from association with military aviation. I think I have now dealt with all the


points about which hon. Members have asked. Fifteen years is a reasonable period, and we hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to be a great deal more explicit about the very serious statement made from a bench behind him by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) who persists in, and repeats, the statement which he made in the course of his speech. We have for the first time heard that arrangements were made two years ago committing this country and the Government to a very large expenditure of public money with a particular firm, and that this House has never been consulted. We are asked this afternoon to discuss the details of a Measure, which, if we amend it in any degree whatsoever, may land this country and the Government in claims for compensation. That, in essence, is the statement made by the hon. Member for Duddeston.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I think the right hon. Gentleman now enlarges vastly the scope of what I said by saying that we cannot amend the proposal in any way whatsoever. He is clearly not entitled to read that into what I have said.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on that point. There may be small matters of form which could be amended and which would obviously not interfere with this agreement made between Imperial Airways and the Government. The substantial point is that the hon. Member, in presenting the Government's position in respect of the Amendment to alter the

date when the subsidy should terminate, expressed the view—I put it no higher than that—and he speaks with some authority as a director of an aircraft company—

Mr. SIMMONDS: indicated dissent.

Mr. JOHNSTON: At any rate, the hon. Member speaks with Tome authority upon the industry, and he has expressed the view, first, that an understanding or agreement has been come to with Imperial Airways to such an extent that we have embarked upon a considerable expenditure of money, and that if this Committee should amend the date now we may be landed m a claim for compensation; secondly, he did say that the Government had to take the terms of Imperial Airways. These are two most remarkable and significant statements. The Minister has not disputed that two years ago such an understanding was come to, or that, if this Committee decide not to approve the agreement, the Government would be compelled to meet compensation claims. In our view, the right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the constitutional significance of the allegations made on the bench behind him, and he has not sought to clear our minds as to the extent to which the Government have been involved in this matter. In order to get such an explanation, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The CHAIRMAN, being of opinion that the Motion was an. abuse of the Rules of the House, put the Question thereupon forthwith.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 243.

Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Montague, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, C.


Kelly, W. T.
Muff, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lawson, J. J,
Owen, Major G.
Thorne, W.


Leach, W.
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Lee, F.
Potts, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Leonard, W.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Leslie, J. R.
Ritson, J.
Walker, J.


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Watson, W. McL.


Lunn, W.
Rowson, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Macdonald, G (Ince)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Whiteley, W.


McGhee, H. G.
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Maclean, N.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Mander, G. le M.
Silkin. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Marklew, E.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Messer, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)



Milner, Major J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Paling.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duggan, H. J.
Lewis, O.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Liddall, W. S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, K. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lloyd, G. W.


Assheton, R.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Loftus, P. C.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Entwistle, C. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Balnlel, Lord
Errington, E.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Lyons, A. M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Everard, W. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Findlay. Sir E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Bernays, R. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Blair, Sir R.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gledhill, G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.
McKie, J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Maitland, A.


Bracken, B.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Brass, Sir W.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Bull, B. B.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Maxwell, S. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Butler. R. A.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guy, J. C. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C


Cary, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Morgan, R. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hannah, I. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Muirhead, Lt -Col. A. J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Harvey, G,
Munro, P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Channon, H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Clarry. Sir Reginald
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Holmes, J. S.
Patrick, C. M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peake, O.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Hopkinson, A.
Penny, Sir G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hore, Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.)
Petherick, M.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S,)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Pilkington, R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Critchley, A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jackson, Sir H.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Crooke, J. S,
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Crowder, J.F. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Culverwell, C. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Davies. Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


De Chair, S. S.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Remer, J. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Denville, Aifred
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Donner, P. W.
Latham, Sir P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Drewe, C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)







Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld')
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Salmon, Sir I.
Storey, S.
Warrenaer, Sir V.


Salt, E. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wells, S. R.


Savery, Servington
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Scott, Lord William
Stuart, Lord C. Cri[...]hton- (N'thw'h)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Suetar, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Simmonds, O. E.
Sutcliffe, H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tate, Mavis C.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Smithers. Sir W.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wood, Rt Hon. Sir Kingsley


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Touche, G. C.
Wragg, H.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Major Ht. Hon. G. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.



Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wakefield, W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Spens, W. P.
Wallace, Captain Euan
Commander Southby and


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lieut.-col, Sir A. L. (Hull)
Dr. Morris-Jones.

Original Question again proposed, "That the word "fifty-three" stand part of the Clause."

7.2 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) raised an important constitutional point which the Under-Secretary has not seen fit to answer. We understand that the Government have entered into an agreement with Imperial Airways whereby certain guarantees are given for a period of 15 years. We want to know whether, in the event of this Amendment being carried, compensation would be payable to the company. The hon. and learned Member pointed out that in that event a liability would have been imposed on public funds without this House having approved of that liability. I would like to know the view of the Solicitor-General on this grave constitutional problem. It is a matter of great importance and I would like him to answer this specific point: Would this obligation be imposed on the Government to pay a sum of money by way of compensation to Imperial Airways, and, if so, would that payment be a consequence of an obligation incurred by the Government which has not been approved by this House?

7.4 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS: May I answer that point? [HON. MEMBERS "No!"] Before the right hon. Gentleman answers surely I am allowed on this side of the Committee to say a few words. The right hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that this amount of money had been incurred by the Government without the sanction of Parliament. Surely this was done under the Act of 1930, and was not done in anticipation of the Bill now before us?

7.5 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: As the hon. and gallant Member appeals to me, I will make another explanation The Under-Secretary told us that as a result of the decision of the Government. two years ago Imperial Airways had embarked on a programme of building a large number of ships, and that in the event of the period of the agreement we are discussing being shortened they would be entitled to some compensation. The new ships which they built were not in the old agreement; they- were in contemplation of the decision of the Government—so we were told by the right lion. Gentleman. Of course, I know that the hon. and gallant Member is much more familiar with this than is the Under-Secretary; he ought to exchange places no doubt, but at the moment they are where they are. We have been told by the authoritative voice on the opposite benches that this arrangement was made in contemplation of this new scheme when the decision was made two years ago to embark on this new scheme. Ii the facts are right, then there has bean an incurring of liability by the Government without any authority from this House.

7.8 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. and learned Gentleman was quite right when he stated that I said this fleet of boats had been ordered in anticipation of this new expenditure. But I thought I had made it clear to the Committee that were the Committee to turn down this Bill we would still be perfectly able within cur financial limits to conclude this new agreement with Imperial Airways for these extended services. It would come to only £600,000, and it would be well within the limit


imposed on us by the 1930 Act. Our present agreement with Imperial Airways comes to an end in 1939, but under the Act we would be able to consider an extension up to the end of 1940. Meanwhile, the boats which have been ordered would have been in use four years on these new services. I meant by compensation, which really was not the right word to use, the percentage always put into an agreement for obsolescence. I think, knowing the life of aeroplanes is not long, that probably at the end of those four years these boats would be worn out. If they were not completely worn out then under the agreement that could easily be met by the 25 per cent. obsolescence, or some small figure of that kind. What the Committee is not clear about is that if this Bill were rejected the Committee is under the impression that we should not be able to conclude these new agreements for these services.

7.10 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: This is vitally serious from a constitutional point of view. The right hon. Gentleman has now told the House categorically that two years ago the Government took a decision and as a result they permitted or instructed Imperial Airways to embark on a building programme under which the Government assumed some liability, never mind whether it is called obsolescence or anything else, and for that liability they have never yet had any authority. Does the right hon. Gentleman justify conduct of that sort in any Government? Whether it is a small or a big amount the constitutional point is the same. Does he justify a Government two years ago entering into a liability and not until to-day asking for approval from the House for that liability? I ask for a categorical answer to that question. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that action of that sort by the Government is constitutionally justified?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, we have full authority for that action in the 1930 agreement.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. EDE: The right hon. Gentleman has not really met the point raised by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). He was dealing with the Amendment which would bring this agreement to an end in 1941. The right hon.

Gentleman says that the machines that have been built under this agreement will be out of date by the end of that period. But the hon. Member for Duddeston was obviously thinking of machines that would be running beyond that period. If the obsolescence payments had been made in respect of them prior to 1940, there could be no such claim as that to which the hon. Member has alluded. I join in the plea of the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) that this is a matter of the interpretation of an agreement, either written or, as the hon. Member for Duddeston said, a gentlemen's agreement. On that we should undoubtedly have the opinion of the Solicitor-General. The question is, are the Government liable or not? The hon. Member went so far as to begin his speech by saying that this discussion was entirely academic and proceeded to pour scorn on those of us who had raised the issue. I am not sure whether, if he was right, the Amendment would have been in Order, because it seems to me that it would be imposing a charge on the Exchequer not mentioned in the Financial Resolution. In so far as it is the anticipation of an agreement, implied or written, we should have the assistance of the Solicitor-General in assuring us whether any legal claim would lie against the Government in the event of the Committee exercising its discretion and inserting any date it thought fit. There has been too much in the last few weeks of this coming down to the House and saying "This is what the Government have agreed and you have to take it" I had hoped that we were not going to see that spirit evinced again, but apparently it is a spirit that will not be eradicated until the Government have been well and truly beaten on some occasion.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: The right hon. Gentleman said, apparently with the idea of trying to defeat the Amendment, that if the Amendment were carried compensation would have to be paid to Imperial Airways—that if this period were reduced to 1941, Imperial Airways would have a claim against the Government. In his latest statement he said that, even if the Amendment were carried, the Government would have full power under previous legislation to carry out their agreement with Imperial Airways. He


cannot have it both ways. If the Government have the power to fulfil their agreement with Imperial Airways, there can be no objection to our Amendment; if they have not, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to mislead the Committee. May I ask him, under which Act does he want powers to fulfil his agreement with Imperial Airways?

Sir P. SASSOON: The power is in the Act of 1930 to conclude an agreement with Imperial Airways up to 1940.

Mr. BENSON: Interpreting the right hon. Gentleman's statement which he has just made in the light of the fact that he said that by 1940 the boats would be worn out, why did he say to the Committee that, if this Amendment, which would carry the agreement on to 1941, were carried, compensation would be payable? There is a palpable contradiction between these two statements, and the right hon. Gentleman has not yet explained that contradiction.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I must say I was astonished to hear the Under-Secretary say just now that the Government had authorised or permitted two years ago the building of this new fleet for Imperial Airways. It happens that a number of Members of the House paid a most interesting visit to the premises of Messrs. Short Brothers some weeks ago, at the invitation of Imperial Airways, to see this fleet being built. It is true that none of those machines have ever left the water, and they may, of course, never succeed in doing so, though I hope and believe they will; but I must say that when we went down there I did not for a moment imagine that we were being asked to see something which was being illegally built, or was being constructed without any authorisation from Parliament—that the House of Commons had no knowledge of it, and had not authorised or permitted it in any way. That puts a different aspect on the matter, and I should like to know how many other secret schemes the Government have. What are they building to go on the land, in the air, or under the water? How many other civil or military schemes have they which have not been authorised—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: While I am sure that that would be a fascinating

topic, I cannot regard it as germane to the Amendment.

Mr. WANDER: Then I will confine myself to wondering how many schemes connected with civil aviation the Government have in contemplation or in operation at the present time without the knowledge or consent of Parliament. I feel that a very serious constitutional point is involved, and the Government cannot really take any exception to its being explored by the House of Commons. Now that the Deputy-Leader of the House has come in, I hope he will be able to throw some light on the subject and to explain in what circumstances this extraordinary incident took place, and to give its some assurance that nothing of the kind will be repeated in future.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I do not want to detain the Committee, hut, in view of the observations of hon. Members opposite, I think it right to say that while I was under the impression, and am still under the impression, and am confirmed in that impression by what the Under-Secretary has said, that compensation would be payable to Imperial Airways, no hon. Member will accuse me of having said that improper compensation would be payable. It is quite clear that the Empire services have to be maintained until 1939 or 1940 as the case may be, and it would have been a very proper and simple way of compensating Imperial Airways, if they should not need these boats after 1940, to allow them an increased rate of depreciation under the old agreement. I do not think the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will controvert me in that expression of opinion.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I will at once, for the very simple reason that the agreement cannot run beyond 1940, and that, therefore, compensation beyond 1940 could not conceivably be part of the agreement.

Mr. SIMMONDS: I am afraid the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot quite have caught the gist of what I was saying. My point was that, if the agreement did not run beyond that time, and if these boats were built for a service up to that time, and were not worn out by that time, then, clearly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I would ask hon. Members


opposite, now that the tide is flowing somewhat against them, just to listen to my remarks. They were very intent on listening to me earlier in the Debate, when they thought they might possibly score a point off my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but the fact remains that it would clearly be perfectly proper for the Government to pay, under the 1930 agreement, accelerated depreciation should these boats not be required after the completion of the agreement. For the rest, my remarks were a criticism of hon. Members opposite that they had not appreciated the fact that these subsidy agreements were bound to run out, and had not made certain that competitive offers would be put forward by various companies—not only Imperial Airways—so that the Government could have chosen between two or three offers, without having to accept the offer of the only company that had the material resources and the professional experience to implement the decision of the Government to run these vastly increased Empire air services.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Under-Secretary has told us that he had powers under the Act of 1930 to make the agreement, but I noticed that he did not say that he had exercised those powers. When the agreement was made, was it made under the Act of 1930?

Sir P. SASSOON: No agreement has been made.

Mr. STEPHEN: The right hon. Gentleman says that no agreement has been made, but a sanction was given for the building of these boats. When the Under-Secretary gave that sanction, was he contemplating making an agreement under the Act of 1930? So far as I have heard his explanation, he did not convince me at all that he was intending to use the Act of 1930 in this connection in making an agreement, and I would like him to make that point clear.

7.26 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I assure the Committee that any seeming reluctance on my part to rise was only due to the fact that I doubted whether I could give any assistance to the Committee on what I venture to think is not a constitutional problem at all. I do not

pretend to have any knowledge of the negotiations, or conversations, perhaps, that took place two years ago between my right hon. Friend and Imperial Airways, but this is, the situation as it seems to me, and I venture to think it ought to commend itself to the Committee as being a perfectly ordinary state of affairs. The Ministry has the power under the existing Act, the Act of 1930, passed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to:
agree to pay subsidies to any persons… in consideration of those persons maintaining in accordance with the agreement".
—concerning which a White Paper, I understand, was laid before Parliament—
a regular service for the carriage by air of passengers, goods and mails".
They are entitled, therefore, under that Act, to pay subsidies to Imperial Airways in consideration of their maintaining services under the agreement which they have signed. That agreement is current till 1940. We are to-day in 1936. The conversations to which my right hon. Friend referred took place in 1934, and the agreement was therefore to run for six years under the then and at present existing Act of Parliament. As I see the situation, the Ministry was fully within its powers in saying to Imperial Airways: "In order to enable yourselves to carry out your function under your agreement, in order to enable yourselves to extend your existing services, and to enter into a new agreement which may expire in 1940"—even if the Amendment we are now discussing be passed, it will run until 1941— "in order to enable yourselves to carry out these services, get on with the work of preparing your rolling stock". And, Imperial Airways having done that, the Ministry would be perfectly entitled to say to them: "Parliament has thought that the period of 15 years which we were discussing was too long, and has limited us to five years. Very well, put your rolling stock on to use for five years, and, if you cannot make full use of it in those five years, then, under our existing powers, we propose to make up to you the output that has been entailed upon you in order to carry out the arrangement." That seems to me to involve no constitutional problem, but to be merely a matter of good, ordinary, common sense.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: It is not for me to say whether the discussion that has taken


place for the last half-hour or so has been within the four corners of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), but, without actually moving to report Progress again, as I do not expect you would see your way to accept that Motion, I would like to express my regret, in view of certain new aspects of this question which have arisen, that we are not discussing it on a Motion to report Progress rather than within the narrow terms of the Amendment. The Minister has just told us of something which is entirely outside any agreement to provide a subsidy. He has told us that, in order to enable Imperial Airways to carry out these services which they have contracted to run in consideration of the payment of the subsidy, they have been asked to get on with the building of some flying boats. What form did that request take? Was it a binding contract with the company, and is it under the subsidy agreement, or under the superimposed agreement, that we are liable to pay compensation to them? Is there an agreement in existence other than the agreement to pay subsidy?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that point. It could not possibly be affected by this Amendment, whether it were carried or not.

Mr. GARRO JONES: That only goes to illustrate that we have in fact been discussing for the last 40 minutes matters which have not come within the narrow terms of my Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious that it has been in order to ask whether there was an agreement which, if the Committee altered these words, would be affected and whether such alterations would give rise to compensation, but the hon. Member cannot go into what may or may not arise under an agreement made under another Act of Parliament which we are not now discussing.

Mr. GARRO JONES: I will content myself with saying that the difficulties of the Opposition are considerably increased in putting their case, and the difficulties of the Government are even more greatly increased in their reply, by the fact that the reply must be confined to the narrow terms of the Amend-

ment. Perhaps we can get some more information on this basis. What is there in the form of the agreement with Imperial Airways which prevents the Minister from saying, "I will reduce the period from 15 years to 12 "? That is the best test, and I should like to make that the touchstone of this discussion. There has been an almost unanimous agreement in the Committee that it would be better to make some reduction in the period of years for which this agreement is to run. Superimposed on that weight of argument the Minister is confronted with serious Parliamentary difficulties. Putting them both together, there is no reason whatever why he should not give us two or three years. He would at once dissipate our objections from a Parliamentary and constitutional point of view, and he would dissipate the objections of Members in all parts of the Committee that this is too long a period for which to grant the subsidy. I am quite prepared to give way, indeed I should be very glad to do so because I am not able to think of any further arguments. If the Minister fails to meet us, not only will the Committee conclude that his proposition is unsound, but their suspicions will be greatly strengthened that there is something of which we are not aware that prevents him from making the concession.

Captain. HAROLD BALFOUR: I rise in consequence of the hon. Member's remarks that, if the Government would make the concession for which he asks, the great constitutional principle for which he is standing so strongly, and on which the whole Opposition is ranged behind him, would be placated. If he can have his constitutional principles placated by a concession of two or three years, they will find the value in this House which they deserve.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has completely misrepresented my hon. Friend's point, which is that the Government have tied themselves, and thereby- tied the House, to Imperial Airways. If they are sufficiently free to be able to reduce the period of the subsidy, they are not tied. Our point is that they have tied themselves in a manner which, if it is not definitely unconstitutional, is at. least very undesirable. We desire that they should let us


know that Imperial Airways is not their master by reducing the period of the subsidy. If they do that, they will have dissipated the constitutional point that we are making. I hope the right hon. Baronet will explain why he tried to mislead the Committee by saying that, if the Amendment were carried, we should be liable to compensation, and later on trying to get away from my hon. Friend's point by saying that it was not so. He made two contradictory statements. If one is true, the other is not. I hope we are going to have an explanation of which, if either, is true.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: It has become obvious that I cannot influence the Minister to adopt a reasonable Parliamentary attitude towards an Amendment which has been supported from every quarter of the Committee, but I believe that I am within the custom of the House in insisting at least on an answer to a specific question. I want to ask him what further agreement there is with Imperial Airways super-

imposed on the agreement to pay subsidies. The Solicitor-General told us that, on top of the agreement to pay subsidies, a request was made to the 'company to proceed with the building of new flying boats. Was that in the form of a binding agreement or consideration? If not, in what form was it, and for what amount? Were there any further permissions given to Imperial Airways, such as to enter into an agreement with Pan-American Airways and commit themselves to that company, with the consequence that they will have to pay further compensation on that account? Is the whole information before us? Are there any further hidden agreements or undisclosed considerations making the Government liable to pay? I really think the Committee will not do itself justice if it does not insist on information on these points.

Question put, "That the word 'fifty-three' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 120.

McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


McKie. J. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Storey, S.


Maitland, A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Remer, J. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Markham, S. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Maxwell, S. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. E


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Rowlands, G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Morgan, R. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Touche, G. C.


Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Salmon, Sir I.
Train, Sir J.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Salt, E. W.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Sandys, E. D.
Wakefield. W. W.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Ward, Lieut. -col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Munro, P.
Savery, Servington
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Nicolson. Hon. H. G.
Scott, Lord William
Warrender, Sir V.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


O'Neill', Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wells, S. R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wickham. Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Simmonds, O. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Palmer, G. E. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Peake, O.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'll'st),
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Windsor-dive. Lieut. -Colonel G.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smithers. Sir W.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Pilkington, R.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wragg, H.


Porritt, R. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.



Ramsden, Sir E.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Spens, W. P.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.




Colonel Llewellin.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Groves, T. E.
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, H. J. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardle, G. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J,
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeaton)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J


Bellenger. F.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Holland, A.
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sllkin, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Clynes. Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Compton, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen. C.


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Stewart. W. J. (H'gnt'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Leonard, W.
Tate, Mavis C.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn. W.
Thurtle, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Vlant. S, P.


Furness, S. N.
McGhee, H. G
Walker. J.


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
Watson W. McL.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Mander, G. le M.
Welsh. J. C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marklew, E.
Whiteley, W.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muff, G.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
( ) in the payment of subsidy to any company it shall be a condition that the Secretary of State shall be entitled to

appoint one or more representatives to the board of the company
This Amendment ought to receive general acceptance in all quarters of the Committee, as the principle is already admitted by His Majesty's Government.


On the Board of Imperial Airways there are already two State representatives, acting, presumably, as our watch-dogs in respect of the sums of money we have already donated to that concern, and if it is right and proper that Imperial Airways should have two representatives of the State on the board, it is equally right and proper that every aircraft company who are to receive a subsidy under this Bill should have Government representatives on its board. The two State representations on Imperial Airways are Sir John Salmond and Sir Walter Nicholson. As it has been considered advisable in the national interest to have State representatives on the Board of Imperial Airways, and if the Government do not propose to accept the Amendment, I hope that they will be able to give a satisfactory reason why the principle should not be applied to every company which receives a subsidy under the present Bill. I would remind the right hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary of State and other Members of the Government who are present, that it is not only in respect of Imperial Airways that the Government insist upon representation on the board when a subsidy has been given. The Government, as I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, insisted upon representation on the Board of the MacBrayne Steamship Company, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, and away back in Disraeli's time the Government of that day insisted upon choosing representatives on the Suez Canal Company.
The principle is three-quarters of a century old. Wherever State money is given, there should be State representatives on the board of these corporations to see how the money is spent and report to the Government. We cannot get, as we fain would, civil aviation nationalised. We are in a, minority, and we have been beaten on that issue. We cannot even get civil aviation run as a public utility corporation. We have been beaten on that matter. But we ask, and, I hope, with good reason, that in the future years, when there is an annual donation of public money, the same principle as that applied to Imperial Airways shall be applied to other companies which are to obtain these gifts. We trust that the Government will meet us at least as far as saying that the principle, already

admitted, shall be continued and developed, so that wherever any money is given there shall be public representatives on the board.

7.48 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: The right hon. Gentleman has put a very wide interpretation on this Clause. His Amendment can apply only to this Bill, and not to the many other departments of public services, and it is only in this narrow, restricted sense that I can address myself to the Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State has the power—and he has used it—to place Government directors on the board of a company to which a subsidy is given. He has done this in the past, and, no doubt, he will do it in the future, if le thinks fit. Therefore, I should have thought that the Amendment was not really necessary. If it will give the right hon. Gentleman comfort and reassurance, I am willing to accept the form of words contained in his Amendment, but I should like to make it clear that it must be regarded as non-mandatory, and that the Secretary of State will exercise his discretion in each case, either at the commencement of the subsidy, or, at any time, during the currency of the subsidy to insert conditions to make that course desirable.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to accept these words, but the words of the Amendment say
it shall be a condition."—
of the payment of subsidy to any company—
that the Secretary of State shall be entitled to 'appoint one or more representatives.

Sir P. SASSOON: "shall be entitled."

Mr. JOHNSTON: If you are making an agreement, you say definitely and specifically that you reserve to yourself the right to appoint a representative or representatives to that company. That is precisely in the terms of my Amendment.

Sir P. SASSOON: That is what I said.

Amendment agreed to.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I beg to move, in page 2, after the words last inserted, to insert:


(4) each agreement made for the payment of a subsidy shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than fourteen days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period presents an address to His Majesty against the agreement it shall cease to have effect;
(5) the intention of the Secretary of State to consider proposals for an air transportation scheme covering the route involved in the agreement shall be publicly advertised, and reasonable opportunity shall be given for the presentation of offers on a competitive basis.
The Amendment has already been described as a very superior one, and I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to treat it in the same way as the Amendment that has preceded it. The Amendment is in two parts. The second part with regard to the publicity of any proposals which the Government have in contemplation has already, in spirit, been accepted by the Government in the speech which the Under-Secretary of State made last week. He has, I think, gone the whole way with regard to what is asked in the Amendment, and I hope, therefore, he will be able to say that he accepts, as a mandatory part of the Bill, that which he accepted as a voluntary act in his statement last week. I do not think that I need labour that part of the Amendment, as clearly it is now the policy of the Government.
With regard to the first paragraph, I hope that he will give very sympathetic consideration to the proposal. Although, as he said last week, he may feel that everything has been perfectly satisfactory as regards negotiations in the past, that all the particular companies who have been to the Air Ministry and have negotiated and tried to get contracts have been given fair treatment, and that everything has been exactly as it should be, I can assure him that that is very far from being the feeling of representatives of the various companies who have gone there. I have no interest in any of these companies at all, but I have been in contact with representatives of both the companies who have been successful and those who have been unsuccessful. I can assure him that there is a feeling of very grave dissatisfaction among several of the companies who have failed, not because of the fact that they have failed, but because they have never had a square deal at the Air Ministry. I am not in a position to

say whether this is well-founded or not, but I know the impression which has been left on the minds of these people, and it is very undesirable that anything of the kind should be allowed to exist in the future.
One of the best safeguards against that, and one of the things that will help the Air Ministry and put them more in contact with public opinion on this matter, is to allow each contract to be brought for confirmation before the House of Commons. After all, there cannot be very many contracts. There. are only two companies which have contracts at the present time. If there were half a dozen in due Course—and that number is unlikely—it would not take up a great deal of Parliamentary time. There are a good many precedents for proposals of this kind. We often bring Orders for confirmation before the House of Commons. They could be taken after 11 o'clock, and so would not interfere with the normal conduct of Parliamentary business. The Debate we had just now has shown the necessity for a provision of this kind. There is dissatisfaction. My right hon. Friend can see from what has been said about Imperial Airways, and if it were known that a contract would go, not in an indirect way in the form of this Bill, but directly in the form of a contract which would come before this House, and upon which we should all have an opportunity of cross-examining the Minister and finding out exact1y the details that had been worked out and agreed upon, it would give far intro satisfaction when every chance had been given to all the interests involved, and the best possible scheme had been put forward for the advantage of civil aviation in this country. I am sure teat the Under-Secretary of State would gave great satisfaction to all interested in these matters if he would say that, either in this form or in some altered form of words, he would be willing to accept the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I am particularly interested in the Amendment moved by the hon. Member. I have never been interested in any way with the running of aircraft, nor have I special information about complaints as to contracts, but I do know from my experience of the Air Ministry that although mistakes may be made there has been no


crookedness about the matter. I could not believe that for one moment. However, like the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) I feel that when we have contracts being given to definite interests by Government Departments, nothing could be better for the whole country than that everything should be made quite clear, to the whole world. Advertisements such as are indicated in the Amendment could be inserted in the newspapers and everything could he made known about the company, and why they were given the contract.
It is, however, on the first point that I feel exceedingly keen, and that is that we should have these contracts with operating firms laid upon the Table of the House. It is not a very big thing to ask the Government to do. It is not something that will delay the coming into operation of any particular scheme, because unless someone prays against the contract it will automatically go on. It is not like an Order in Council which requires an actual formal Resolution. In the proposal that has been put forward by the hon. Member there is a chance of allowing the House of Commons and the country to know exactly what agreements are being made. When that is done I think that a lot of the misgivings and suspicions about long-term contracts and short-term contracts, and this company getting this, that or the other, would be dispelled. We could then march forward with a certain knowledge that a good contract has been made with a particular company and that that contract has been laid before the House and approved by it. If we do that, we can go forward with a good deal less suspicion, and it will be for the benefit of the whole community.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I should like to associate myself with what was said by the Mover of the Amendment and the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken. I cannot imagine that the Under-Secretary will take the view that if he were to accept the Amendment he would be putting something into the Bill which would tend to delay its operation. There are many precedents for the Amendment. With regard to the second paragraph, having regard to the discussion in the Committee to-night, I should have thought that the Committee would have taken the view that the more publicity we could have the better it

would be. All that the first paragraph seeks to do is to provide that when any contract is entered into between the Government and any company interested in aviation and seeking a subsidy, that agreement shall be laid on the Table of the House for not less than 14 days, to give any Member of the House an opportunity of taking exception to it. There are many precedents for that proposal, and I hope the Minister will realise that it will reassure hon. Members on this side of the Committee if he can see his way to accept it.
In regard to the second paragraph there, again, there are many Acts of Parliament which require public advertisement. The Solicitor-General will, I think, bear me out when I make that statement. The whole object of requiring public advertisement is to ensure that there shall 'be no secret agreements. I am not suggesting that there would be anything improper even if this Amendment were not accepted, but the object is to ensure that there shall be no secret agreements, and to assure the public that there has been open and free competition. The Government benches are filled with hon. Members who believe in free play competition. This Amendment will give a reasonable opportunity for the presentation of offers on a competitive basis. There is nothing very revolutionary in that proposal. Therefore, I hope the suggestion that there should be public advertisement, and every opportunity for the various competitors in this industry to compete for the advantages of this Act with regard to air transportation schemes.

8.6 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: With regard to the first part of the Amendment, I have already explained the action that will be taken in the case of future contracts to ensure that the House is kept as fully informed as possible. A White Paper will be laid outlining the main features of each proposed agreement, particularly specifying the precise services to be performed and the amount of subsidy to be paid. The Amendment suggests that the agreement should be laid before each House. The agreement is a very voluminous legal document, and I feel sure that what Members of the Committee would like to have is a plain statement, giving


all the facts. There will be nothing to conceal. I think that will satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. MANDER: If my right hon. Friend means that a White Paper is coming before the House for the approval of the House in the way indicated in the first paragraph, then I agree that it does meet me, but I do not gather that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that. If he does, I am willing to accept that as an alteration.

Sir P. SASSOON: The agreement would be too voluminous to circulate, but a White Paper will be laid before hon. Members containing everything, and it will be perfectly open to hon. Members to raise the subject if they have any objection. It will be laid on the Table of the House for 14 days. Therefore, it is obvious that it will be a matter that can be taken up.

Mr. ATTLEE: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman recognises the difference between an agreement being laid before Parliament, and a White Paper. A White Paper is not an agreement.

Sir P. SASSOON: The object of laying the White Paper is that it shall be laid before the agreement is signed. If the opinion of the House were against the White Paper, then the agreement would not be signed.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: How is the right hon. Gentleman going to test whether or not the House likes the White Paper? The Amendment would ensure us of something, but a White Paper would not serve the object unless the Government appoint a day for us to discuss it.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Am I to understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that an agreement will be too bulky to be laid before the House, seeing that the agreement of 1929 takes about five or six pages of typescript only?

Sir P. SASSOON: I know what these legal documents are. They are usually very long and very difficult to understand, and I feel sure that hon. Members would prefer to have a clear statement of what the agreement contains. A Motion might be put down, if there were a desire to discuss the White

Paper, and if the vote went against the White Paper, then the agreement would not be signed. TM whole point is that the Debate would take place before the agreement was signed.

Mr. ATTLEE: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows the Rules and Procedure of the House. To put down a Motion means getting a day from the Government for its discussion. When we are dealing with an agreement, it is a different matter from a White Paper. The White Paper may be giving information, but you may be depriving the House of the usual method of dealing with a problem such as this.

Sir P. SASSOON: Surely, it is possible for the Leader of the Opposition to put down a Motion.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman is surely not telling the House that his main reason for objecting to the Amendment is on the ground that the agreement would be too bulky to lay?

8.11 p.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The Committee is entitled to know exactly what the right hon. Gentleman means, and whether we are to be in a position to give a vote on this question. Surely, he is conversant with the Rules of Procedure. In the ordinary course of procedure, there is no discussion on a White Paper, as such. Is it intended to bring before the House an abbreviated form of agreement? We do not want to know every comma and dot in the agreement, but we want to know about the company with whom the agreement has been made, and, we want to preserve the power of the House to pray against an agreement if it does not like it. The right hon. Gentleman puts us in a fearful difficulty, because we never know what exactly he has in his mind. We want to know whether we are to have something on which we can vote, and not be presented with a sort of fait accompli, and told that we may take it or leave it.
The Bill would probably have been through some time ago if proper explanations had been given in the first place. I agree that last week the right hon. Gentleman did try to give explanations, but according to his statement in Column 1035 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of


last Tuesday he led the House to believe that in future no agreement would take place unless the House was conversant with the details of it. The only satisfactory thing for the Committee would be the submission of an agreement upon which we can pass an opinion. It is no satisfaction to come to the House and say: "You can go into the Library and see all the details, but the thing has already been done; so you need not worry about it. Leave it with us." We are not sent here by our constituents to accept that sort of procedure. We are sent here to give our opinion, particularly where money is involved and money is being given away. We do not ask for all the legal phraseology, but at least it could be put into language so that the ordinary person could understand what it means and what obligation is created by the agreement. In regard to the second part of the Amendment, everyone will agree that there was a tremendous amount of suspicion as to how the agreement was drawn up when we had our first debate. I am willing to concede the point that a good deal of that suspicion was dissipated by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman last week. In order that there may be no suspicion at all in the mind of anyone that A is being favoured at the expense of B why is it not possible for there to be competition with regard to these services? The Under-Secretary will create the suspicion that certain people can go to the Departments and get certain advantages. No harm will arise if the Amendment is accepted. Will the Solicitor-General tell us whether in future this House will be able, not by an affirmative Resolution but by a Prayer, to decide whether an agreement should be ratified. That is the specific point upon which we desire a specific answer.

8.16 p.m.

Major HILLS: Agreements of this character go through two stages. In the first place, you have the heads of the agreement drawn up by the business people, and then these heads of agreement are cast into legal shape, of course always at greater length by the lawyers. If anything is inserted in the Bill it should be "heads of the agreement." The Amendment wants very careful revision as regards the first paragraph. The hon. Member does not say at what date the agreement, or as I suggest the

heads of the agreement, should be laid. It would obviously be unfair to the company if a substantial time elapsed and then after an agreement had run for some time it was annulled when laid on the Table of the House. There ought to be a provision that the agreement, or the heads of the agreement, should be laid as soon as possible. So far as the second paragraph is concerned, that is not applicable except to new contracts. At present Imperial Airways have a charter from the Government covering certain routes, and on these routes you cannot ask for competitive tenders. On certain other routes it is the practice of the Government to give full opportunity to other interests concerned to state their case, but I do not think you can ask for tenders except as regards new contracts.

8.19 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The position in regard to this matter is as follows: Before 1930 no legislative authority existed for the Air Ministry to enter into contracts at all. The Minister acted within his ordinary executive powers and if Parliament was dissatisfied with the agreement it took the ordinary steps against the Executive. That was thought not to be a very satisfactory procedure and the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) was responsible for piloting through this House the Act of 1930. When he introduced that Bill he said that it was the intention of the Government to continue the existing practice:
It is intended in the future, as in the past, as and when each new agreement reaches its appropriate stage, to inform Parliament of its main features, and there will, of course, continue to be opportunities for discussion in the annual Debate on the Air Estimates."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1930; col. 667, Vol. 238.]
That was good enough for the hon. Member and his party, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air has gone a great deal further. What he proposes to do is not to stand upon executive authority or the legislative authority which he possesses under the 1930 Act, but to lay a White Paper giving in the fullest possible detail the gist of the agreement into which it is proposed to enter, and he is giving an undertaking that nothing shall be done until the agreement has lain on the Table of the House for 14 days, in order to give the Opposition an opportunity of asking


for a day on which the matter can be discussed. He has gone even further than that. He has taken what is perhaps a most unprecedented step. Not only will the House he able by means of the White Paper to receive the whole gist of the matter—and when I say "gist" I do not mean in broad outline but the whole range of the matter—but that in the Library there will be placed the agreement. itself, so that hon. Members will not only have the popular explanation of the agreement in the White Paper but those who are interested may examine the agreement itself clause by clause. It really is unreasonable to ask the Government to go further or to ask any Department to go further. That is the point of view of the Government on the first part of the Amendment.
My right hon. Friend is not prepared at the moment to accept the words in the second part of the Amendment. The hon. Member suggests that a reasonable opportunity should be given for the presentation of offers on a competitive basis. We do not wish to incorporate in an Act of Parliament anything that will suggest, even in the remotest degree, that we ever intend to allow this new service to get into the state of competitive chaos which exists in the United States. We will endeavour to avoid that, and for that reason we do not like the words "competitive basis" at the end. Subject to that, it is the intention of the Government before the Report stage to frame an Amendment which will carry out the meaning which my hon. Friend intends to attach to the Clause.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I fully appreciate the Solicitor-General's remarks about the second part of the Amendment, and I have no doubt that the wording which he intends to bring forward will be a great improvement. It was never my intention that the word "competitive" should mean that the lowest cash tender should be accepted, for there are a great many other things to be taken into consideration. I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for saying that an Amendment will be accepted on the Report stage. With regard to the first part of the Amendment, I hope the Solicitor-General will not regard the matter as being closed, and that between

now and the Report stage he will consider whether it is not possible to accept it in another form. After all, we are not very far apart. All I am asking is that there should be a White Paper, which, after all, is merely informative, that in addition there should be the agreement and that then the first paragraph of the Amendment should come into operation. That would give the House a much more definite and specific opportunity of taking action if it so desired. Probably in most cases nothing would happen at all, but in the very few cases where there was a feeling that everything was not right, the House would have a well-known procedure laid down according to which it could take action.
From the Debate which has taken place the Solicitor-Genera] will have seen that there is very general sympathy for an Amendment of this kind. I can assure the Solicitor-General that such a course as I have proposed would satisfy all those hon. Members who are dissatisfied now, and would get rid of all trouble and criticism in the future. If I withdraw both parts of the Amendment, will he not consider, with regard to both of them, whether it is not possible to arrive at some general agreement before the Report stage?

8.29 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOOREBRABAZON: I would like to say a word or two on this particular point. The Mover of the Amendment now intends to shift his ground to a hope on the Report stage.

Mr. MAND ER: Not until I have had a reply.

Lieut.-Colonel MOOREBRABAZON: With regard to the second part of the Amendment, the hon. and learned Gentleman was very sympathetic, although he does not like the wording, but on the first part he was very strongly against the whole principle. On the first part, the Under-Secretary is prepared to give us even more than we asked for. All we asked was that the agreement should be confirmed by the House of Commons, but the Under-Secretary is prepared to give us White Paper. What he forgets is that all one can do with a White Paper is to read it. This is not a party matter. Many of the agreements will not be of first-class importance, but


we shall not be able to raise any objections to them except on a definite Motion from the official Opposition, which is a big thing and which has to be done, as it is said, through the usual channels. It might, however, happen that some of the supporters of the Government would like to say a few words on some of these matters. We might wish to have a little information, but we should be unable to get it under this procedure at all.
The Solicitor-General was speaking with the iron hand of the Department behind him and with none of the sympathy which was so nicely shown by the Under-Secretary, but I do hope that if my hon. Friend withdraws his Amendment the Solicitor-General will give us the assurance that something will be done along the lines of that Amendment between now and the Report stage. The heads of agreement might be given to us so that we should not expend these great lumps of Government money without the confirmation of the House.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I would like to press the Government on this point. I think it will be agreed that we have not had any real statement as to why there is any difficulty in laying these agreements on the Table. I do not think anybody is impressed by the story about their bulk, for we constantly have bulky Government documents. Nor is there any real difficulty as regards procedure. Masses of things are laid on the Table of the House, and nothing happens unless some hon. Member takes the matter up. It is suggested here that instead of having this procedure, which works perfectly well, the whole matter should be put. in the hands of the leader of the Opposition, who would have to watch all these things and would be pestered by every hon. Member who is interested in them. I cannot see why the leader of the Opposition should have to do the work of hon. Members when Parliament provides a simple procedure. I have heard no valid objection to that procedure, except a quotation of what was done by my hon. Friend in the Labour Government of 1929 to 1931. Speaking as a very humble member of that Government, I think we ought to give up always considering everything that was done by the Labour Government as a sort of criterion' of perfection. I think it is time for the Government to stand on their own feet.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The Leader of the Opposition has put what he had to say very persuasively, especially in his final sentences. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) for the way in which he has dealt with the observations of the Solicitor-General, and I assure him that if he will take the course which he indicated, everything which has been said on this Amendment will be very carefully considered. He cannot expect me to give him an undertaking, nor can I give an undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend, but I do not want him or anybody to think that we are shelving the matter and will forget all about it. I. can assure him that the whole discussion, and the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, which undoubtedly have much force in them, will be very carefully considered between now and the Report stage.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment on those conditions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Delegation of certain functions of Secretary of State as respects civil aviation.)

8.34 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, to leave out "appearing to him to be," and to insert "to be appointed by him and being."
We all know that appearances are deceptive, and we want to know what is the reason for the use of the words "appearing to him to be." The words are misleading when read with the rest of the Clause. We desire by our Amendment to make the Clause positive, and not to leave this matter to supposition. We want whoever is delegating these powers to be in possession of the facts and to see that the persons concerned are suitable for the purpose, not in appearance only but in knowledge. Someone who was very well dressed might come along and might appear to be very capable, but mere


appearance is not sufficient. Our Amendment seeks to mark the difference between "appearing to be" and "being" substantially representative of the interests concerned.
I am sorry that the last Amendment was withdrawn, because it was a very important Amendment. Here again we have the question of services mixed up with the question of subsidies. No part of the Bill says what the word "services" means and I am trying to get an answer to that question. Does it mean the same thing in this connection as it means with regard to postal services where we use trains and boats to carry mails but we do not buy the trains and boats. I understand that the word "services" as applied in this Bill, in relation to air navigation, means that money is to be given to firms to build their aircraft and presumably the interests concerned with civil aviation are those connected with the people who are building the aircraft. It is not to be a question of services in connection with civil aviation but a question of the construction of airships or aeroplanes. The Minister ought to give the Committee a clear state-men in regard to these words.
What is meant by "substantially representative"? Indeed, these words taken together really amount to an insult to the Minister. The Clause uses the words "appearing to him to be". The Minister ought to be qualified to know whether a man fulfils the conditions or not. He ought to be able to see through appearances and to be able to tell at once from conversation whether a man is technically efficient or not. If the Minister is not himself acquainted with figures he ought to be able, with the aid of an accountant, to tell definitely whether a man is financially sound or not in relation to the words "substantially representative" which follow. The Minister has now a chance of wiping out that insult. In providing for the delegation of these functions to such a body we ought to give serious consideration to what we are doing. It is not only a, question of delegating responsibilities to these individuals but of delegating public money which must pass through their hands and I hope that in dealing with such an important matter, the Minister will take the view implied in the rest of the Clause. But unless some alteration is made in

the wording on the lines of the Amendment it seems to me that anyone without knowledge but with an appearance of knowledge could come along and that a Minister who was not able to see through appearances could be "hocussed."
Our Amendment would make it definite. We want these functions to be delegated to people who are substantially representative of the interests concerned and not people who "appear to be" substantially representative of those interests. We want not appearance but reality. We want to try to make the Clause what it ought to be and to prevent the Minister from having to take all the responsibility of failure if some well-dressed silver-tongued individual came along and made a mess of things. By inserting these words we would make it clear that the Minister ought to know to whom these functions are being delegated. If he does not know it himself, he ought to get someone who does know and who will be able to see through people such as I have described.

8.41 p.m.

Captain GUEST: I support the Amendment, which strikes at the root of the whole matter. The Gorell Committee made certain recommendations with which I am in complete agreement in principle, namely, that at the suitable date large blocks of control of civil aviation should pass from the military side of the Air Ministry to the care of those civilians who were fit and proper persons to carry on this business. They deal more particularly with the service of airworthiness and that word, in itself, contains the germ of the whole Debate. It is the public interest with which I am concerned in this matter, and I hope that considerations of pubic interest will have the effect of making those who are inclined to support this Amendment, do so with vigour. The public use commercial aircraft, and it is the lives of the public that are at stake, no'; those of the directors or the operator. Therefore, I ask the Committee to consider what is being said by the Secretary of State on this subject, in rather disjointed language if I may say so, through his spokesman in the House of Commons and through other expressions of his views. He does not seem to have come down on one side of the fence or the other. The Tinder-Secretary a few days ago said:


Of one thing the House may be assured. The persons appointed will be men who really know the essentials of the aircraft industry and air transport"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1936; col. 1044, Vol. 312.]
But as the Mover of the Amendment has pointed out, the wording of the Clause is practically the same as saying that men who appear to be knowledgable are to be selected and I do not think that language is anything like a close enough definition for our purpose. Either this board is already appointed or else the Secretary of State has to appoint it. I have never known of a case in 25 years' experience in which a Ministry has thrown off its own shoulders such a grave responsibility as is involved here and put it carelessly on a body of people of this kind. I shall deal more in detail with that body in a few minutes. The board, apparently, is to have representation from the constructors. I ask hon. Members opposite to support me in saying that that means the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. It is well known that that is a ring, which will be a very tight ring. Nobody will be able to come into that category who is not in the gang. I need not mention the names of the gang, because they are too well known to my friends on the Treasury Bench. I am sure this is not the way in which to handle this difficult subject. If you pass from the word "constructors," you come to the word "operators," and who are they? There is one great operator, supported by the State, Imperial Airways. As to those who are struggling along without similar assistance, what hope have they of having their voices heard?

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss, on this Amendment, the entire composition of this body? I, personally, and, I am sure, my hon. Friends also, have no objection whatever to that, but either we are to be confined to the Amendment before us or we may bring in all the various classes which we think ought to be on this board, and which are the subject of subsequent Amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a point that had come to my attention, because it had struck me that we cannot discuss the words of the Amendment unless we also discuss what follows. The words

themselves are meaningless, and I was therefore thinking it would be best if the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) would carry on with his argument, but without going too wide.

Mr. EDE: On the point of Order. May I take it that if any of the later Amendments are to be called, we shall be allowed to discuss the merits of each individual class of persons mentioned in the lines immediately below this Amendment when we come to them, and that we shall not be told that the general discussion has taken place and that the Amendments must be put pro forma?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I am put in a little difficulty, because I may not be here when the next Amendment is called. I think we had better keep as narrowly as we can to the words that are now before us.

Captain GUEST: I thank you for your assistance, Sir Charles, and I have no intention of going beyond the scope of the Amendment, but when you find words such as "to be appointed by him," and when you refer to line 15, which says:
for delegating to a body appearing to him to be substantially representative of the interests concerned,
it seems to me hard to say anything unless you are allowed to deal with the composition of this so-called body. I therefore ask the Committee to be patient with me while I draw attention to the fact that this so-called body is a self-appointed body and that the Ministry has divested itself of any responsibility for it. In my opinion it is very little more or less than a ring put up probably even before this Debate took place as between the Secretary of State and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. If you have that kind of so-called body set up behind the scenes, I submit that you will keep out from the most important body controlling certain sections of civil aviation all chance of criticism, all chance of innovation, all chance of improvement, and all chance of progress. Therefore, I submit that it is not right to set up this committee without a great deal of discussion and searching. I could go on further, but as you have rather warned me, Sir Charles, not to do so, I will leave the question of the insurers, who are referred to specifically in this Clause as


being another member of this board, and then we come to the independents.
As I have already said, this is the most loosely framed Bill that I have ever seen presented to this House, and I do not think the Committee ought to pass it without the most careful inquisition and a most careful statement on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State. I challenge the Ministry to deny that the whole of this so-called body has already been set up behind the backs of Parliament, and is already in the hands of a limited and narrow group of persons, and that any outsiders, whether constructors, operators, or independents, or any other section, have little or no chance of getting through. I may be told that this is all nonsense, and, if so, I shall be delighted to hear it. I have never known a Department of State responsible for obtaining money from the Treasury, and obviously from the taxpayer—a large sum of money, very nearly £1,500,000—that has tried to exonerate itself in this way. It says to the House of Commons, "Criticise us, but we are not responsible. We have delegated our authority to a body that we have not even had the courage to appoint. We have allowed these so-called organisations to appoint themselves." I think it is a travesty of legislation.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. GARRO JONES: The right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) has drawn the attention of the Minister, with no party motive whatever, to a very serious defect in the Clause. I would ask the Committee to look at the word used, which is "delegating." I do not claim to be a great expert on the use of the English tongue, but it would appear to me that this is not a delegation that is proposed at all; it is rather a surrender or a transfer of his whole powers under this Clause. After these powers have been delegated, as it is called, it appears to be impossible for the Minister to reclaim them, and in these circumstances I submit that there is at least an error in drafting, if not in intention. I hope that when the discussion on the Clause standing part of the Bill takes place, the Committee will devote its attention to that point.
In the meantime, I hope the Minister will adopt a rather more conciliatory attitude than he has adopted hitherto. I have been a Member of this House for about five years altogether, with some little knowledge of aviation matters in many parts of the world, practical and theoretical, and I have never yet been favoured by the Minister, although I have made proposals which have been supported in every part of the House, with a single concession of any kind. Therefore, although that in no way influences my attitude, I am putting it forward as a suggestion to the Minister that he would greatly improve the conduct of these Debates if he would show a greater receptivity to sound proposals brought forward with no party motive and supported in every quarter of the House. Here is one of them, and the grounds which I would add to those already put forward by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division are these: The powers which are being conferred—and I ask the Minister not to use the word "delegated" any more—as matters to which this Subsection applies are:
the design, construction, and maintenance of aircraft and matters connected therewith.
Under that Clause he is transferring for all time, to a body of which this House of Commons has no information—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Not for all time.

Mr. GARRO JONES: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me for how long these powers are being transferred?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Will the hon. Member recd Sub-section (2)?

Mr. GARRO JONES: I see. If the Minister has power to revoke this Order, that removes one part of my objection to the Clause. That brings me to the next part of my objection, and that has to do with the nature of the body to whom it is proposed to transfer these powers. Everybody who is connected with these matters knows that the people to whom the powers are to be transferred are Imperial Airways and the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. These are the two bodies which are to control this so-called advisory body. There is to be nobody who can look at civil aviation


from the national or public point of view. Whenever a question concerning civil aviation comes up in future, it will be decided wholly by its repercussions on trade interests and the interests of Imperial Airways. If the Minister is genuine—and I make no suggestion that he is not—in his repeated expressions of concern about the necessity of civil aviation in the national interests, he should be the last person to see these great powers handed over to a body whose motives must be dominated by cash motives.
We must have on this body people appointed by the Minister and not appointed by these two sectional interests. That is the whole purpose of the Amendment. What will happen, if I understand anything about the practical procedure, is that the Society of British Aircraft Constructors and Imperial Airways will cause somebody to appear. Nobody knows who will initiate this matter. We shall wake up one morning to find in the Press that a body has been set up. I believe, with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division, that it has already been appointed. By some process of spontaneous evolution there will be a body appearing in mid-air, and the Minister will say, "That is the body to whom I am going to transfer all these powers." It would be more rational and more in the national interest for the Minister to say, "Rather than allow this body to arise from obscure sources, of whose motives and interests we know little, I am going to agree with the Committee and appoint it; then I shall know where these people come from, and I shall know that there are no secret controlling hands on this body governing the whole civil aviation of the Empire by trade interests."

8.58 p.m.

Mr. LEACH: I am sure that the Under-Secretary, after having listened to the last two speeches, will realise that this Sub-section creates a much more serious situation than he imagined in the first instance. We have discovered in the Debate to-night that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to make concessions when the concessions asked for appear to him to be reasonable. We have had one concession from him, for which we are grateful. Surely this is an occasion upon which a concession is even more necessary than

on the previous occasion. I hope that he will not consult his two learned colleagues, because this is a matter in which the departmental prestige is at stake. He is giving away in this Clause a considerable amount of importance which attaches to the Air Minitry in its control of civil aviation. I am not sure that under the duties which are delegated to this board there will not go the right to issue licences to pilots, and to decide on the airworthiness of aircraft—matters upon which the Minister has been, probably by common consent all over the world, the most competent authority that any nation has possessed. These considerations induce me to believe that the Under-Secretary will see that the undermining of the prestige of his Department, which will follow the passage of this Sub-section, does not take place.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I wonder whether, on this occasion at least, we may have a clear statement from the Government as to how far they are going to syndicalism this business. Here is syndicalism with a vengeance. The Government are under this Clause handing over the appointment of the body controlling the industry to private interests, and they are divesting themselves of the right to nominate the individuals who are to comprise this board—a board which is to have a definite, clear and extensive control over the aircraft industry for a long period of years. Could anyone have believed that in cold blood the Under-Secretary and the Government would divest themselves of their power to nominate the persons concerned? I do not wish to transgress your Ruling, Sir Charles, but it is obvious from a later Amendment on the Paper that we have actually to ask that some personal representatives of the public interest should be on the board. Whether that will be called or what the attitude of the Government is, I do not know. What we are pleading for at this moment is that the Government, in handling this public money, should, at any rate, nominate the board. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) says specifically that the board is already appointed. We have heard this kind of thing already this afternoon in another connection. We have been told by other hon. Members


who have considerable knowledge of the aircraft industry that arrangements and commitments in other directions have already been made.
We have it now from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division that the board is actually appointed already. The Under-Secretary is not to appoint this body. A group of private vested interests are actually to appoint the governing body to control civil aviation. I never thought that I should live to see the day when a Conservative administration would put forward the most naked syndicalist proposal that it was possible to put upon the Statute Book. Parliamentary control will be gone and private vested interests, interested in the finances and profit of the industry, are openly and nakedly to have control, and all that the Secretary of State is to do is to be concerned that the body should appear to him to be substantially representative of those private vested interests. I see that the Home Secretary has come in, and I am going to make an appeal to him. It is only when the right hon. Gentleman has been here to-day that any conception of public interests has appeared in the discussions. May I put the point to him? It is that the Government are divesting themselves of their power to nominate the board controlling this industry. They simply say that the vested interests, which they specify, shall nominate the members of the board. That appears to us to be syndicalism, and it is syndicalism with huge Government subsidies. We are asking by this Amendment that the Government should in the public interest maintain and exercise the right to nominate the governing body of this industry and that it shall not hand over that right to vested interests. The Government may as well take it from us now as later that so long as this kind of thing is being m-ported into the Bill it will meet with relentless and unhesitating opposition from us on this side, and that we shall do our best at the earliest possible opportunity to upset this arrangement.

9.6 p.m.

Captain BALFOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) will allow me to say that I think his remarks are based very largely on a

misconception. I was a member of the Gorell Committee on whose recommendation this particular Clause was framed. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were handing over the control of civil aviation to this particular body, that they were handing the industry over to them. I think I have quoted him correctly in that respect.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Pretty nearly.

Captain BALFOUR: Neither of those statements is correct. In respect of commercial aviation the Government are retaining control of inspection, of design, and of manufacture.

Mr. LEACH: Where does it say that? "Commercial" is not in the Bill.

Captain BALFOUR: When I spoke of "commercial" I was referring to large aircraft. If the hon. Member looks he will see that certain types of aircraft are exempted from the control of this body. The right hon. Member said that people who had vested interests in profits were going to control this industry. Any aircraft which are supplied for the Royal Air Force under Government contracts are not subject to this body. The only type of aircraft which it is to control corresponds to the type of motorcar that hon. and right hon. Members may possess or that I possess, which is an ordinary product of engineering such as we use in our ordinary life for private purpose. The whole idea of appointing this board was to get away from State control, to get away from officialdom in regard to the commercial development of machines which are used for private and commercial purposes by enterprises which should not be controlled by the Government—apart from their operational control, which is a different thing. I venture to say that if they were enmeshed in the wheels of officialdom their development would be retarded, and that would tend to prevent this country continuing to be the leading country in the development of private aeroplanes, which it is at the present time. Thai is the sole object of the devolution recommended by the Gorell Committee, and I hope it will commend itself to this Committee as a reasonable means of freeing a new industry from the trammels of officialdom, which throttle the adventurous spirits and throttle the inventive genius which


have characterised the development of British inventions so far.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: On the discussion of Clause 1 we on this side came to the conclusion that this Bill was a ramp, and I think this Clause confirms that view. It is one of the most extraordinary Clauses ever brought before the House. The Government propose to hand over to this body, which is to be composed of operators and constructors, the control of the inspection of design, construction and maintenance of aircraft. We have been told by an hon, Member opposite that this body is to consist entirely of Imperial Airways, who get the subsidy under Clause 1, and the Society of Aircraft Constructors. In their most degraded days the Mines Department never handed over the inspection of coal mines to coalowners, but this Bill proposes to hand over the inspection of the construction of aircraft to people who are financially concerned in their construction. When a railway accident occurs in this country the Government see to it that an inquiry is held by a Government inspector. He is a Government official; he is not appointed by the railway companies and is not in the pay of the railway companies. He is appointed for the protection of the public.
The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) says the operations of this board will not cover Army aircraft, but only the aircraft such as he and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) will use. If aircraft are to become an important feature of travel in the future it is essential that every precaution should be taken to ensure safety in their construction, and it seems a topsy-turvy method to put into the hands of the people who have been making money out of the construction of these aeroplanes the control of the inspection of their own products. That is what this Clause means. As was very obvious on Clause 1, this Bill is a ramp, and the Government, so far as aviation is concerned, are in the pockets of the directors of Imperial Airways.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I wish to deal with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), when he used the motor-car industry as

an analogy in defending this Clause. I always know when I have been successful in a General Election, because I immediately receive from various motor-car manufacturers price lists of the more expensive makes of car they are providing for the public. Only last week I received—I am sure as a Member of this House and in no other capacity—a little pamphlet from the Daimler Company, on the front page of which was a picture of the motor-car whoch they produced in 1897, with the magnificent wording with which they commended it to the public. Let us suppose that the manufacture of private motor-cars had been an industry which was subsidised by the Government, that the Daimler Company had been selected to receive the major part of the subsidy, and that they had been brought under a Clause similar to that which appears in this Bill. Does anyone imagine that in such a case the progress we have seen in motor-car construction and design would have taken place? Surely that is the point with which we are dealing here.
The right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest), with that knowledge which hon. Members opposite appear to possess of the secret history of this Bill, assures us that he knows that this board has already been appointed and has been selected from a very narrow circle. I think he called it "the ring," which is a very nasty way of saying "the narrow circle." I understand that it is generally assumed that this board is to be confined to a very few people with very big interests in the matter. In a later paragraph of Subsection (1) we see that in their advisory capacity the board are to deal with the design, construction and maintenance of aircraft. If that is what they are to deal with I suggest that it is essential that the Government should keep in their own hands the power of appointing people from outside the narrow circle who may be possessed of original and valuable constructive ideas which would be of the greatest value in assisting the development of the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) dealt with analogies taken from various Government Departments. Poor as the inspection of the mercantile marine is under the existing law, and much as we should like to see it improved, it is, at any rate, carried out by the Board of


Trade, and the regulations, although they are occasionally referred to other people, are made by the Board of Trade.
I want to discuss the narrow wording of this Amendment. It seems essential that the Committee should prescribe that the advisory body should be appointed by the Minister, and that he should pursue the usual course of getting a series of names in front of him drawn from various sources, and should appoint from those names various nominations, consisting of persons who appear to him to be best fitted to represent various branches of the industry. That is the common way of dealing with this matter. For instance, the Board of Education have a consultation committee, constituted according to a certain scheme, but the board appoint the persons. They may write round to other bodies for nominations, but they retain appointment in their own hands. Every local body which has to administer Acts in respect of agriculture or education, has to draft schemes which generally contain provisions with regard to the type of person who shall be appointed. The appointment of the persons is always left with the authority.
That should be the position adopted under this Clause. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to accepting the wording of the Amendment so that the appointment of these people shall be in his own hands. If he is to take, merely because they have been nominated by somebody else, the advice of these people, drawn from what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division calls the ring, or the narrow circle of vested interests, it is plain that he will not get from that body any amount of disinterested advice whereby much advance in the construction of aircraft can be obtained. I hope that he will have the courage to assume responsibility for the appointment of this body, and to insert in the Bill the words of the Amendment.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I hope hon. Members behind will forgive me for intervening at this moment, but I want to say something about the Clause, which I consider is of very great importance. The Bill gets worse and worse the farther it goes. The Committee have not been told that the board is a limited

liability company, and that its articles of association have been in existence for at least nine months. Not only is it known who are to represent the constructors and other interests, but it is left to those who are nominated, as constituting three-fourths of the board, to decide what the remaining one-fourth shall be; in other words, the remaining fourth will be co-opted members, upon the authority of people who have already been accepted as responsible, working under the conditions of a limited liability company.
This is a dangerous Bill for the reason, if for no other reason, that those who represent the constructors upon the board are people definitely interested in particular types of aeroplane. Everyone who follows the development of aircraft construction, knows that new ideas, and indeed new principles, are constantly being brought forward. For instance, the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) will remember that only a little while ago the question was mooted of the possibility of utilising as a new principle of aircraft, the paddlewheel principle. Apart altogether from rotating planes, the paddle-wheel —

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting very far away from the appointment of the board.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I am dealing with the powers of the board when it is constituted, in order to show that if the representatives of certain well-known firms in the aircraft industry are to decide upon the maintenance and construction, and all the rest of it, of aircraft, they are bound to be prejudiced in favour of the ordinary kind of construction, the Ordinary aeroplane that we know. It is very dangerous, and very bad for the development of aircraft, that it should be handicapped in that way. In view of the facts that have been reported to us, I hope that the Commitee will support the Amendment.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: Even from the standpoint of the complete cynicism which has been advanced by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and dealing with the matter from the lowest point of view that can be imagined, such as was considered by the hon. Member,


there is a balance of interest in the proposal which ought to satisfy the outlook which he expressed. He stressed that this body would represent constructors. May I also point out that it represents operators and insurers? I am aware that he will not have any regard for operators, who are merely regarded as being ordinary British flyers of machines, but I am sure that his mind might have some regard to an operator who has to fly upon an international basis. He may be aware that an operator, under the Rome Convention, shall be deemed to be a person who has aircraft at his disposal and makes use thereof for his own account. We have a class there which is upon an international definition, and who are coming under this Clause, against which the hon. Member animadverts so strongly.
I would ask him also to consider the participation of the insurers. If anyone has not merely the right or the duty but, to take the hon. Member's standpoint, a cynical desire, to see that construction is right and that operation is perfected, it would be the insurers, who have to carry the risk. It therefore seems rather strange that this body is represented by the hon. Member as one which could not possibly be concerned with the interests of safety in the air. When you consider it closely, you find that the body represents not merely the persons who have to operate, or who risk their fortunes or the lives of their servants in the machines, but also those who cover that risk.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is proceeding to discuss the composition of the board and we understood from your Ruling that we were precluded from doing that. As I understand it, we are discussing only whether or not the Secretary of State should appoint a committee, not the composition of that committee.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: That, of course, is quite true. The discussion is getting rather wider than I thought it would, but I gathered that the hon. and learned Gentleman would try to show that one interest would cancel another out.

Mr. BENSON: Shall I be able to reply to the very unpleasant accusations that have been made by the hon. and learned Member? I have been described

as cynical and as having a low type of mind.

Mr. MAXWELL FYFE: The hon. Member represented me correctly as using the word cynical. I did not for a moment, however, suggest that he had a low type of mind, but that his argument was on a low plane, and that I am prepared to stand by. I welcome the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). It will enable me to get it quite clear. I was dealing with the suggestion that this body would be representative merely of constructors, and that it would be merely from a body representative of constructors that the Secretary of State would consider the matter. I was endeavouring to point out that the Clause itself states that the Secretary of State may by order provide for delegating to a body appearing to him to be substantially representative of the interests concerned, and in particular of the three groups I have mentioned, certain functions, and I venture to suggest that the difference between the Clause as it stands and the Amendment is this: That the Clause in its present form envisages co-operation and freedom and that the Amendment does not envisage as being possible that co-operation between balanced groups within the industry can bring about a better or more hopeful result for civil aviation in the future. On our reading of these words we have the principle of co-operation and freedom for civil aviation balanced against the regimentation which is all that the Opposition can advance as being the groundwork of their Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: Chivalry leads me to commend to the notice of the Committee the phenomenon of an hon. Member opposite rising to support the Government. I want to consider one or two points which have been raised. The first is what the hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Mr. Maxwell Fyfe) has said about some measure of protection to somebody, at any rate, from the balance of interests, the operators, constructors and insurers, so that the only people left out will be the passengers, the public and the workers. Where does the balance of interest come in? The Secretary of State


is to delegate to a body, which can include a limited company, and we hear it suggested that it is proposed that a limited company shall be this very body. If the operators and constructors of aircraft form a limited company they will have sufficient flexibility and intelligence to make the insurers' representation on that body docile, or I do not understand the development of British industry as well as I think I do.
The other point is whether the Secretary of State can ever retrace the fatal step of delegating to a body. This is a pure matter of construction, and I am sure I shall be forgiven for addressing the Committee on something which I ought to understand. As a pure matter of construction, if the Secretary of State once delegates these powers to a body he can never take them away again. He may—no doubt he will with the assistance of his skilled advisers—be careful within limits to make sure that it is a body reasonably substantial. Say that a limited company is proposed. He will make provision to see that it does not transfer all its shares to somebody else, that it is not likely to go into liquidation, and that it has not power in its articles of association to take to selling fried fish instead of attending to its proper duty. The Secretary of State can delegate certain functions, can entrust to the body advisory functions and can make certain directions about the fees to be paid to such a body. I am sure that it can be put right if the Law Officers agree and the Secretary of State desires it, by making it possible to get rid of this body, but the Amendment moved from this side is doubly desirable as long as the body cannot ever have the powers taken away from it and given to another body.
Sub-section (2) states:
An Order under this Section may contain such incidentals and supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Order, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order of the Secretary of State.
I suggest—it is purely a, matter for lawyers—that you cannot vary an order delegating functions to a body by taking the functions you delegate away from that body and giving them to somebody else. There is the power to revoke. You can bring the whole thing to a, stop by re-

Voking the order and leaving the body in the air, but, if you then seek to give something to a new body, you will find that in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 there is nothing about delegating from time to time. It may be done by Order, and the Order may be varied or revoked, but the Order may not be replaced by a, new one. I suggest to the Committee that on balance, and after the expenditure of a. good many thousand pounds, another place, in its judicial function, would probably say that you could never get rid of that body except by bringing this part of the Act to a standstill by revoking the whole Order. As I say, the matter could easily be put right if it were thought proper to do so, but I ask the Committee to say, for this and many other reasons, that the handing over year by year of the Government of this country to industrial interests should be conducted in a. more subtle manner.

9.36 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: With regard to the last point made by the hon. Member opposite, it is certainly our intention that the latter part of Sub-section (2) should stand, that is to say, that the Order may be varied or revoked if the body were not appearing to be representative of the interests mentioned. I think it would have been better that this discussion should, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, have been kept more closely within the limits of the Amendment, as there are Amendments later relating to the actual composition of the board. The Amendment would defeat the object of the Clause. The Clause is the result of the recommendation of the Gorell Committee, which was set up to investigate the possibility of giving greater freedom to civil aviation. It was because it was felt that civil aviation was too much under autocratic control that the Committee proposed the establishment of this board.
There is nothing revolutionary or new in this principle of devolution. Ever since 1929 there has been an increasing measure of devolution going on in the matter of airworthiness, and the Joint Aviation Advisory Committee has been set up, to which it was possible for owners of private aircraft to go. Then there is the safeguard, from the point of view of the public, that the Air Ministry will still retain control over the design and construction of the larger passenger-carrying aircraft, and, of course, all aircraft will


still remain under the Air Ministry's protection. Nor is there anything revolutionary in setting up this board without its being appointed by the Secretary of State. There is a complete analogy in Lloyds Register of Shipping, which is not appointed in any way by the Board of Trade, which consists of shipowners, ship constructors and insurers, and with which the Board of Trade have nothing to do—

Mr. PRITT: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that Lloyds Register of Shipping has anything to do with the design, construction or maintenance of ships?

Sir P. SASSOON: The inspection of accidents will not be delegated to the board, but will be retained by the Air Ministry—

Mr. JOHNSTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the State gives Lloyds Register of Shipping a monopoly?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am only saying that there is an analogy. There is very little subsidy. The grant will be made for five years, and the maximum annual amount will be about £12,000.

Mr. BENSON: May I ask what functions Lloyds Register have in regard to construction?

Sir P. SASSOON: They issue certificates. This board is not going to construct—

Mr. BENSON: It is to consist of constructors.

Sir P. SASSOON: And Lloyds Register also consists of ship constructors. The whole point of the Amendment is that the board should be appointed by the Secretary of State, but the point of the Clause is that the board should be free to appoint themselves, subject to the Secretary of State considering that they are representative of the classes which they are designed to represent. If I were to accept the Amendment, it would defeat the object of the Clause. The actual constitution of the board can, I think, be best discussed on the following Amendment.

9.42 p.m.

Captain GUEST: Before we go to a Division on this question, I should like some further elucidation. Apart from

the principle which we have been discussing, of whether the board should be an appointed body or a self-nominated body, I want to know what procedure has taken place between the Air Ministry and these other organisations in order to get to the point of having a body set up at all. I understand that this body will have Treasury finance to the amount of £12,000 a year, and I want to know what has been the procedure of approach by the Air Ministry. Has the Under-Secretary at one time or another approached the Society of British Aircraft Constructors? I do not see how the Committee can allow this matter to go through without some explanation of how it has come about. I cannot see how a body can come into being without some explanation of how it started its existence. Why we cannot be given a simple answer to a simple question defeats me completely. Is it improper for me to ask the Under-Secretary whether he will inform the Committee of the negotiations —probably perfectly proper and perfectly simple negotiations—which have led to the self-appointment of this body?

9.45 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I should like to make an appeal to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), whom I see in his place, fresh from his week-end party, because I know what a staunch upholder he is of the rights of the House of Commons. This is a matter which very closely touches those rights. The right hon. Gentleman says there is some analogy with Lloyd's register. Will he tell us what rights the Secretary of State has delegated to Lloyd's Register, what moneys are to be given to them and what right they have to collect moneys? There is no analogy on earth between the two matters. This is a service which has been in the hands of the Secretary of State for administration, because it was a vitally important matter concerning the safety of people who had to travel by air, just as the Minister of Transport has to control the safety of motor cars and not, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) seemed to think, the manufacturers—they do not make regulations with regard to safety on the roads—

Captain BALFOUR: I made the analogy that the motor car industry was free in respect of its design, free in


respect of maintenance by the manufacturers after delivery of the motors and free, in respect of inspection during manufacture, of any Government interference. There is no question at all of the Air Ministry not making safety regulations for operation, which is a matter entirely outside the scope of the board.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says it is a matter entirely outside the scope of the board. It is not. The maintenance of aircraft is one of the matters that can be delegated specifically. The important part of the operation of aeroplanes is maintenance, and that is one of the matters that can be delegated.

Mr. EVERARD: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that private aeroplanes are already delegated

Sir S. CRIPPS: That does not seem to be a very good argument for delegating the rest. It is less important if a private person wishes to commit suicide. It is a much more important matter if someone else is to be murdered.

Mr. EVERARD: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is generally so extremely clear, on this occasion does not seem to understand the position. The Government have particularly excluded larger aircraft from the operation of the scheme. The aircraft that the Government are including in this scheme are to-day overlooked by an exactly similar committee which the Government are setting up.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If that is so, there is no point at all in the Clause, because it leaves us just where we were, and it seems that we are wasting a lot of time discussing it. I am assuming that it is a change, and I am assuming that under this Clause there are to be delegated to a body powers which have not formerly been delegated to it. I am objecting to the right hon. Gentleman's assumption that there is an analogy with Lloyd's Register as regards shipping or an analogy as regards motor cars. In neither case is there a precedent for what is being done. What is being done is to take out of the control of the House matters which are at present in the control of the House, because the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary is in the House. If the matters are delegated under a

Clause such as this, there will no longer be any control at all in the House. I should have thought everyone here would say that matters of administration such as these are essentially matters that should be retained under the control of the House, and that can only be done if the Minister is made the responsible person for appointing the board. I really do not understand what his argument is against the appointment of the board. I do not imagine that he is going to suggest that he is not competent to select, if he wishes, persons representative of these various interests to sit on the board.
What difference does it make as regards the constitution of the board whether they are selected by the Minister or selected in this underground way through some limited company? It makes no difference to the competence of the body to deal with the matters under the Clause, but it makes the vital difference that, if the Minister selects them, they remain under the control of the House whereas, if this private limited company is to run the construction, design and maintenance of aircraft, no one in the House can raise any question at all as regards what they do. I cannot see that anyone is going to be advantaged. Unless this is part of some bargain that the right hon. Gentleman has entered into with vested interests, unless it has been forced on him, as the Amendments to the Coal Mines Bill were forced on the Government by the vested interests owning the coal mines, as the Tithe Amendments were forced on the Government by the vested interests concerned in tithes, as indeed every vested interest seems to be able to force what it likes on the Government, there is really nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman has said which can possibly excuse the getting rid of Parliamentary control in this matter and substituting for it control by some limited company.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: The time of the Committee might be saved by the Minister making some kind of explanation. Since I spoke there have been serious charges made against him. He has not stood to his guns, if he has any to fire. He has not attempted to answer a single thing that has been put up against him. It is quite evident that there is something to


hide in this business. The body is already well known to the Minister. I am certain, having listened to every word of the Debate, that the Minister has within his knowledge the body, which is already in existence. He has within his knowledge the basis upon which this agreement is to be made. He knows that the agreement is already made. He knows the names of all the firms. [Interruption.] I am surprised that the interest that has been shown in this subject for so long should be disturbed by the movement of any Member of the House. Any Member bas a perfect right to sit where he chooses, but evidently some people cannot sit where they like.

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Member referring to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) or myself?

Mr. HARDIE: I am referring to the right hon. interrupter. If I might, in a sentence, be reminiscent, my late brother was for some years in this House, and the only person I have heard him say a word against was the hon. Member opposite. I hope that there will be no more efforts at collaboration. I was about to say that it is within the knowledge of the Minister that everything that is forecast is already in being. The makers of this aircraft know exactly where they stand to-night. They know what sum they are to receive, and what kind of body they are to be. It is unfortunate for the Minister that some people in these places talk. This is not a question of rumour, but actual fact. We know from those who are engaged in these places that the Minister for months back has had this prepared. When you talk about invitations to go and see some of the airboats that are being built, you must remember that that is the usual sort of thing that is done by that type in order to try to get you to say, "I cannot vote against this which is doing so much good," or something like that. Those boats are being built out-with the provisions of this Bill, and unless the Bill goes through, there will be no payment for the boats that are being constructed. The Minister knows that fact. He has proved himself to be absolutely incapable.
I have never seen anything so incapable in my life as the efforts of the Minister in this Bill. I do not know

why he keeps his job. We ought to indicate to him that he is incapable of carrying out this kind of work. I am not going to make any more pleas for the Amendment, because I know that he cannot give it. The Attorney-General, sitting beside him, has been hanging his head all day, and no wonder. I am sympathetic towards him. He has been trying to keep a nice, straight face, but he cannot. That with which he has been associated to day has reduced him almost to a pulp. We take this great question of aviation, get down to a single Amendment, and find that it is only a question of three or four years; yet we have been all these hours trying to get some sense out of the Minister and he has none to give.

9.58 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I rise only to clear up one or two points which have been raised since my right hon. Friend replied to the Debate on the Amendment. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) was strictly correct in saying that the proposed board bore no analogy at all to Lloyds Register, or that there was no instance of anything that had been delegated to Lloyds Register by a Government Department. I do not think that he was strictly accurate in that, for matters connected with the load-line have been delegated by the Board of Trade to Lloyds Register since the Convention of 1932. Although I do not suggest that there is any strict analogy between a board of this type and Lloyds Register, it is, roughly speaking, possible to compare the functions of the two. Lloyds Register issues a certificate without which insurance cannot be obtained, and the functions of this board would be to enable certificates of insurance to be issued, and such matters as periodical inspection and so on would fall within the functions of the board. My right hon. Friend is a little apprehensive lest the Committee should have forgotten the history of this matter. It was recommended by the Gorell Committee in the fourth of their recommendations, which appears in paragraph 107 of their report:
The control of airworthiness of civil aircraft should be devolved


It will be noted that their recommendation would embrace all civil aircraft. The view of the Ministry upon that matter was made clear when they published the report as long ago as July, 1934, in which they said that:
His Majesty's Government consider that the Air Ministry must retain, for the present at all events, control over the airworthiness of the larger passenger aircraft used on regular air transport services.
The intention of His Majesty's Government was made plain in that statement upon the subject of the report.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I point out to the Solicitor-General that the recommendation of the Gorell Committee was for the establishment of a board entirely different from the board in the Bill under discussion?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I agree. The suggestion that they made was that it was a board which
should be devolved from the Air Ministry to the Joint Aviation Advisory Committee of Lloyds Register and the British Corporation Register, reconstituted as a statutory, autonomous and executive authority and renamed The Air Registration Board.' 
If the Committee will bear with me for a moment, I want to answer that point, and, at the same time, to answer the question that was properly put by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) as to what has been going on since. I deprecate the suggestion that there has been anything improper, or hole-and-corner, or anything that need not be exposed fully to the Committee to-night, and I am going to state the position. In August, 1934, letters were sent to the principal aviation interests inviting them to form a representative committee to frame a scheme for the consideration of the Secretary of State, and a committee was formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Handley Page for this express purpose. In June, 1935, after that committee had been labouring for the best part of a year, a scheme was submitted to the Secretary of State by Mr. Handley Page on behalf of the committee, and from July to October, 1935, that scheme was Under detailed examination by the Air Ministry in all its aspects.
The position which has been reached at the present time is that, in its essentials, the scheme has been accepted, subject to some very important matters which have yet. to be cleared up. Finance has not been approved by the Treasury, and the technical methods have yet to be discussed in detail between the board when constituted and the technical departments of the Air Ministry. The reservation which the committee wish to see taken away on aircraft built to carry more than 10 passengers is under appeal from the committee, and the form and shape which the whole scheme is finally to take is being considered at the present time by the Treasury Solicitor. It is contemplated that, when the Treasury Solicitor has fully considered the scheme, it will be referred back to the Handley Page committee for them to reconsider before it comes, once again, to the Secretary of State for his final consideration in the matter.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Should not we know the particulars of the scheme before we are asked to pass a Clause of this kind?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Baronet will bear in mind that we are at present considering only whether these words should be replaced by other words. There are other Amendments on this Clause, and one of them provides, I think, for the laying of an Order upon the Table of the House. All that I am concerned to point out at the moment is that the Order which the Secretary of State would make, if authorised by the passage of this Clause in the Bill, is a matter that has been considered and is still being considered from every possible aspect, in a perfectly proper way, and in the whole transaction there is nothing whatever to be concealed. With that explanation as to what is being done, I hope that we may proceed from these words to consider the other Amendments which are on the Order Paper, which are more germane to the actual procedure when the Order comes before the House.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: One wonders how far it is really worth while going on discussing the Bill to-night in view of the rapid steps that have been taken for the formation of a new Government. I was a


little surprised to see in the House tonight actually open offers being made—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order. I hardly think that this question arises on the Amendment.

Sir S. CRIPPS: On a point of personal explanation. I was very embarrassed at an earlier stage, but I desire to say to the Committee categorically that I had no offer to enter the Government.

Mr. MANDER: It is rather regrettable that the interesting statement of the Solicitor-General was not made a couple of hours ago. A great deal of time might have been saved. It is only another example of the deplorable manner in which the business of the Committee has been handled to-night, as on a great many other occasions. I should have thought that the words in the Amendment are perfectly reasonable. It does not seem to make much difference one way or the other which form of words we have, but the Amendment is more in keeping with what the Committee would like. It is a great pity that two things did not happen

a couple of hours ago—the statement of the Solicitor-General and the acceptance of this very reasonable Amendment.

10.7 p.m.

Captain GUEST: I thank the Solicitor-General for his very simple explanation of a point which I thought was doubtful and of which the Committee should not be kept in ignorance. I agree with the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that the words "appointed by him" are just as straightforward and much more easily understood by anyone who reads the Bill. I hope that, even at this last minute, the Government will see the wisdom of falling into line with the general common-sense view of the Committee and accept the Amendment. There would be no loss of prestige in so doing, and they would make friends of the Committee, instead of keeping us up all night.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 122.

Division No. 199.]
AYES.
[6.54 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell. D. R.


Adamson. W. M.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Daggar, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)


Ammon, C. G,
Dalton, H.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Groves, T. E.


Barnes, A. J.
Day, H.
Hall, G H. (Aberdare)


Barr, J.
Ede, J. C.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Batey, J.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hardie, G. D.


Bellenger, F.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Benson, G.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Bevan, A.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Brooke, W.
Gallacher, W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Burke, W. A.
Gardner, B. W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Cape, T.
Garro-Jones, G. M.
Holdsworth, H.


Chater, D.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Holland. A.


Cluse, W. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Hopkin, D.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Jagger, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Compton, J.
Greenwood. Rt. Hon. A.
John, W.




Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Montague, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, C.


Kelly, W. T.
Muff, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lawson, J. J,
Owen, Major G.
Thorne, W.


Leach, W.
Pethick- Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, E.


Lee, F.
Potts, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Leonard, W.
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Leslie, J. R.
Ritson, J.
Walker, J.


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Watson, W. McL.


Lunn, W.
Rowson, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Macdonald, G (Ince)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Whiteley, W.


McGhee, H. G.
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Maclean, N.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Mander, G. le M.
Silkin. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Marklew, E.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Messer, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)



Milner, Major J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Paling.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Duggan, H. J.
Lewis, O.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Liddall, W. S.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dunglass, Lord
Lindsay, K. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lloyd, G. W.


Assheton, R.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Loftus, P. C.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Entwistle, C. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Balnlel, Lord
Errington, E.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Lyons, A. M.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Everard, W. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Findlay. Sir E.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Bernays, R. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Blair, Sir R.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gledhill, G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.
McKie, J. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Maitland, A.


Bracken, B.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Brass, Sir W.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Markham, S. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Bull, B. B.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Maxwell, S. A.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Butler. R. A.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guy, J. C. M.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C


Cary, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Morgan, R. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hannah, I. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Muirhead, Lt -Col. A. J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Harvey, G,
Munro, P.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Channon, H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Clarry. Sir Reginald
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Holmes, J. S.
Patrick, C. M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Peake, O.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Hopkinson, A.
Penny, Sir G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hore, Bellsha, Rt. Hon. L.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack, N.)
Petherick, M.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S,)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Pilkington, R.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Critchley, A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Jackson, Sir H.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Crooke, J. S,
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Joel, D. J. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Crowder, J.F. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Culverwell, C. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Davies. Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


De Chair, S. S.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Remer, J. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Denville, Aifred
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Donner, P. W.
Latham, Sir P.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Drewe, C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runciman. Rt. Hon. W.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)







Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld')
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Salmon, Sir I.
Storey, S.
Warrenaer, Sir V.


Salt, E. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wells, S. R.


Savery, Servington
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Scott, Lord William
Stuart, Lord C. Cri[...]hton- (N'thw'h)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Suetar, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Simmonds, O. E.
Sutcliffe, H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tate, Mavis C.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Smithers. Sir W.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wood, Rt Hon. Sir Kingsley


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Touche, G. C.
Wragg, H.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tryon, Major Ht. Hon. G. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Spears, Brig. -Gen. E. L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.



Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wakefield, W. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Spens, W. P.
Wallace, Captain Euan
Commander Southby and


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lieut.-col, Sir A. L. (Hull)
Dr. Morris-Jones.




Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cooke, J D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Guy, J. C. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Craddock, sir R. H.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Assheton, R.
Critchley, A.
Hannah, I. C.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crooke, J. S.
Harvey, G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Balnlel, Lord
Crossley, A. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Culverwell, C. T.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)


Belt, Sir A. L.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Bernays, R. H.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Holmes, J. S.


Blair, Sir R.
Denman, Hon. R. D,
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Blinded, Sir J.
Denville, Alfred
Hopkinton, A.


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Boulton, W. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Drewe, C.
Hulbert, N. J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Bracken, B.
Duggan, H. J.
Jackson, Sir H.


Brass, Sir W.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Joel, D. J. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Keeling, E. H.


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)


Bull, B. B.
Ellis, Sir G.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Butler, R. A.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Latham, Sir P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Errington, E.
Leckie, J. A.


Cary, R. A.
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Castiereagh, Viscount
Everard, W. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Findlay, Sir E.
Lewis, O.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fleming, E. L.
Liddall, W. S.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lloyd, G. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Locker- Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Channon, H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Loftus, P. C.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gledhill, G.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Lyons, A. M.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Cower, Sir R. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)




McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


McKie. J. H.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Storey, S.


Maitland, A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Makins, Brig. -Gen. E.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Remer, J. R.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Markham, S. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Maxwell, S. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. E


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Rowlands, G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Morgan, R. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Touche, G. C.


Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Salmon, Sir I.
Train, Sir J.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Salt, E. W.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Sandys, E. D.
Wakefield. W. W.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Ward, Lieut. -col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Munro, P.
Savery, Servington
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Nicolson. Hon. H. G.
Scott, Lord William
Warrender, Sir V.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


O'Neill', Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wells, S. R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wickham. Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Simmonds, O. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Palmer, G. E. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Peake, O.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'll'st),
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Windsor-dive. Lieut. -Colonel G.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Smithers. Sir W.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Pilkington, R.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wragg, H.


Porritt, R. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.



Ramsden, Sir E.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Spens, W. P.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.




Colonel Llewellin.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Groves, T. E.
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, H. J. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardle, G. D.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Ammon, C. G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J,
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeaton)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J


Bellenger. F.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Holland, A.
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sllkin, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Clynes. Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Compton, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen. C.


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Stewart. W. J. (H'gnt'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
Leonard, W.
Tate, Mavis C.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn. W.
Thurtle, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Vlant. S, P.


Furness, S. N.
McGhee, H. G
Walker. J.


Gardner, B. W.
Maclean, N.
Watson W. McL.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Mander, G. le M.
Welsh. J. C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marklew, E.
Whiteley, W.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Muff, G.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Lianelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. John.




Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Gibson, C. G.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gledhill, G.


Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. p. G.
Critchley, A.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Crooke, J. S,
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Assheton, R.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Atholl, Duchess of
Crossley, A. C.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crowder, J. F. E.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(lsle of Thanet)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Grimston, R. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
De Chair, S. S
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Belt, Sir A. L.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Blair, Sir R.
Denville, Alfred
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'II, N.W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Boulton, W. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Bower, Comdr. R. G.
Drewe, C.
Guy, J. C. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hanbury, Sir C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hannah, I. C.


Brawn, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Duggan, H. J.
Harvey, G.


Bull, B. B.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Dunglass, Lord
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan


Castlereagh, Viscount
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)


Cazalet, Theima (Islington, E.)
Ellis, Sir G.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Emery, J. F.
Holmes, J. S.


Channon, H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hopkinson, A.


Christle, J. A.
Errington, E,
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Everard, W. L.
Hulbert, N. J


Colfox, Major W. P.
Flldes, Sir H.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Findlay, Sir E.
Hunter, T.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Fleming, E. L.
James, Wing-commander A, W.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Joel, D. J. B.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E,
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh.W.)
Furness, S. N.
Keeling, E. H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.




Latham, Sir P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Orr-Ewlng, I. L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Leckie. J. A.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Peake, O,
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Penny, Sir G.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Lewis, O.
Petherick, M.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-ct. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Llddall, W. S.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spens, W. P.


Lindsay, K, M.
Pilkington, R.
Stanley, R. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Lleweilln. Lieut. Col. J. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Loftus, P. C.
Ramsbotham, H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ramsden. Sir E.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Lyons, A. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)


Mabane, W. (Huddorsffeld)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Sutcliffe, H.


McKie, J. H.
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Remer, J. R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Touche, G. C.


Maitland, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Makins, Brig. Gen. E.
Rowlands, G.
Wakefield. W. W.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Markham, S. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Maxwell, S. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Warrender Sir V.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Salt, E. W.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wells, S. R.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Sandys, E. D.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Moreing, A. C.
Sassoon. Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Morgan, R. H.
Scott, Lord William
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Selley, H. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Windsor-Cilve. Lieut. -Colonel G.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Captain w. T. (Forfar)
Wragg, H.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Pertick)


Munro, P.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.



Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Simmonds, O. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Sir James Blindell.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Groves, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Attlee. Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardle, G. D.
Parker, H. J. H.


Barnes, A. S.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Burr, J
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards. R. (Wrexham)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Robinson. W. A. (St. Helens)


Brooke, W.
Holland, A.
Rowson, G.


Buchanan, G.
Hollins, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Burke, W. A.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Cape, T.
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sllkin, L.


Cluse, W. S.
John, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cocks, F. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Compton, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, C.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, w. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Dalton, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, J. J.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leslie, J. R.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Watson. W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lunn, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A,
William. E. J. (Ogmore)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Maclean, N.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Windsor W. (Hull. C.)


Gibblns, J.
Mander, G. le M.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marklew, E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)



Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

10.19 p.m.

Captain GUEST: I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, after "operators," to insert "pilots."
To my mind this is an Amendment of great importance, and is designed largely, if not solely, to safeguard the public as a whole. I hope in a few sentences to convince the Committee of the necessity for the specific inclusion of pilots upon this new body or board of control. A little further down on the Order Paper, there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) which goes so far as to use the name of a body which is now well known in this country, the Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators. I have purposely not mentioned specifically this responsible body as being the body to which such a nomination might be entrusted, because I notice that in the case of the constructors and the operators no mention has been made of the Society of British Aircraft Constructors. It is however, nice to know that there are serious bodies of this nature which have been organised for a long time and that if the Committee sees fit to agree to my Amendment and to have representation of the pilots on this new body, they have the Guild of Air Pilots to whom they could go for advise or nominations.
I plead the case of the pilot partly on his own behalf, although almost entirely on behalf of the general public of which we have to take care. The last sentence of this Sub-section reads:
The matters to which this subsection applies are the design, construction and maintenance of aircraft, and matters connected therewith.
Apart from the safety of the aircraft and the safety of the passengers, I think I am right in saying that no designer can design a machine to take passengers in the air without the co-operation, advice and opinion of the test pilot. It therefore seems to me that if one of his duties is to advise and assist the designer and if he is to be responsible both for the care and maintenance of the aircraft on the ground, it is hard to see how the pilot can be usefully excluded from such an important body. The views of the other sections of this new body on the matter of the inclusion of pilots are important, but I cannot understand why the constructors and operators do not welcome

the inclusion of an independent pilot on this very important body.
A few moments ago, on the last Amendment, it was the submission of the Under-Secretary of State that there was a parallel between Lloyds Register and the construction of aircraft. I can see no parallel at all between the captain of a tramp steamer—say, for the sake of argument, the standard type of 4,000-ton steamer—and an aircraft, the captain of which is responsible for a. very flimsy machine of fabric and tin and for the lives of 20 or 30 passengers. If the engine of a tramp steamer stops, it can wait, send out a wireless message and be towed home, but if anything goes wrong with a large aeroplane in the sky, the pilot's anxiety must be almost intolerable.
The chief duty of the new board will be the granting of certificates of airworthiness and unless an opportunity is provided in the early stages of obtaining the independent and specific advice of pilots about the capacity and capability of a machine I think you will be asking too much of the pilot who has to be responsible for it. It may be argued that the Gorell Committee, on whose recommendations the Bill is founded, did not intentionally omit reference to pilots in this connection. We have here, I am glad to say, three members of that committee and I leave it to them to say whether now, on consideration, they do not think that this important board or body would be strengthened if pilots or ex-pilots were represented upon it. I think the case for their inclusion almost speaks for itself. When a fatal accident has happened it is too late for the pilot to say anything. I hope I am not stretching the bow too far if I take as an example the recent loss of 11 lives at Alexandria. After a considerable experience of that particular route, from Cyprus to Alexandria, I wonder whether it would not have been better to have left two passengers behind on, that occasion, and taken an extra 50 gallons of petrol so that the machine would not have run out of petrol when within five miles of the shore. I do not know to what extent the pilot in that case had an independent say in the matter but I do not think that is a very far-fetched example.
I suggest that in the early experimental stage it is of vital importance to take the pilot into close collaboration. Now that we are setting up a new body with great


powers in relation to the design and maintenance of these machines, we ought not to exclude from the counsels of such a body the vitally important view of the captain of the ship. I ask the Committee to forget for the moment the side of the question which has occupied so much of our time this afternoon—and with regard to much of what was said I am afraid I was in agreement with the Opposition—and to dwell for a moment upon the anxieties of the pilot. He has to carry in this flimsy machine at great speed a certain number of lives. His own reputation and the reputation of his company are at stake. He has to deal with atmospheric conditions which at any moment may force him to take decision of a, drastic and difficult character. A man in that position ought to be given a status. He ought to feel that he can make important decisions without running the risk of being turned down by his own company.
I have indicated the kind of things which happen in day-to-day life and in starting this new board we shall have done something if we include the pilot who is responsible for the lives of the passengers in the air, whereas the constructor and the operator remain on ground. In the discussion on a previous Amendment somebody mentioned the insurer, and it was suggested that the insurer's point of view was almost the most important, because the insurer had to deal more with hazards than any other member of the fraternity who are to form the new board. I think I have the right to read to the Committee a short note from the head of the pioneer firm of aircraft insurers. I think it should carry weight, because it will make the Committee appreciate the importance of the pilot's opinion upon the insurer's efforts and point of view. It reads:
I think it would be fair and true to say that the experience and ability of the pilot play a larger part in the design, maintenance, and operation of aircraft than the experience of a seaman in the design or operation of merchant vessels. We have not yet arrived at the stage in aviation where the performance and habits of aircraft are as well known to the designers as are the performance of ships, and for this reason the pilot's experience and views must be a large and influential factor in the design and operation of aircraft, and any board which seeks to control airworthiness must at some stage or another rely upon the guidance of skilled civil pilots.

I think that really makes an unanswerable case for their inclusion, and if it is true that the Gorell Committee did not expressly rule them out for consideration as members of this board, we shall have done something to protect the public a little more than if they were left out.

10.32 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: It had not been intended to put a representative of the pilots on this board because the work of the board is to supervise the maintenance and construction of aircraft, and pilots, quapilots, do not either maintain or construct aircraft. Moreover, it had been considered that the term "operators" would cover the experience of pilots, because all operating lines have their pilots, and also that the term "constructors" would also embrace the experience of pilots. Still, if it would meet the wishes of the Committee, I would be willing before the Report stage to bring in an Amendment with the object of providing that this body shall be so constituted as to include among its members at least one person who has had not less than five years' professional experience as a pilot of aircraft.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: As one who served on the Gorell Committee, I would like to say a few words on this point. I quite appreciate the way in which my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) has moved this Amendment, and I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of it, but when we were considering this question on the Gorell Committee, I think we rather wished, as far as we could, to get the various interests evenly balanced between the manufacturers, those who used the aircraft, and the insurers, and we thought—I think rightly—that the fact that the insurers would have, such a very considerable say on the committee would of itself be a very great protection for the public. While I quite appreciate the value of the services of pilots on such a board, I think those services, without this Amendment, would already be found on the board, because practically all the members who constitute the Guild of Air Pilots either are or have been in the employment of manufacturers or operators of aircraft, and the fact of putting


an extra person entirely representative of the pilots on the board would mean that you would only be giving an increased voice in the control of this board to either the manufacturers or the operators of aircraft. As one who represents the interests of a vast number of private owners and aeroplane clubs on this matter, we feel that if we have one representative of these people put on this board of 12 or so people, it will whittle down the value of our representation until it becomes far less than it is at present. It is because we consider that the pilot will be adequately represented, and because we feel that the addition of a pilot upon this body will increase, as against our representation, the authority of the operators and the manufacturers, that we are rather unhappy that this matter should have been brought forward.

Captain GUEST: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in view of what the Under-Secretary has said.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. LEACH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, after "aircraft," to insert:
and also comprising persons to be appointed by him as being independent of those interests.
The presence of operators and constructors on this body will ensure some attention being paid to airworthiness, but we are anxious to know who is to guard the interests of the public. Until we see the actual Order setting up the body, there will be some doubt as to the scope of the work which is to be entrusted to it. The Sub-section says that its duties will be concerned with construction and maintenance and matters connected therewith. What are those matters which are connected with maintenance and construction? After having listened to the Debate on the circumstances attending the birth of this body, I can conceive that powers will gradually fall into the hands of the board which are not provided for in the wording of the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that that argument will come better on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), in page 2, line 36.

Mr. LEACH: I bow to your Ruling, Captain Bourne. I gather that this body

will consist exclusively of experts of one sort and another and will contain no laymen. The membership may and probably will consist of a majority representing owning interests primarily concerned with dividends and the prosperity of the concerns which they represent. In this respect I can see no protection whatever for the public. It is well known in the aircraft world that safety devices and new inventions may occasionally cost too much and be set aside on the grounds of expense. This is a day of constant discovery and development, and it seems to me that the greatest issues which will come before this new body will be concerned with public safety.
Will it not be possible, under the operation of this Clause, to see an employé of Imperial Airways giving a certificate of fitness to one of his own firm's aeroplanes? Further, will it not be possible that we may see an employé of a construction company actually passing into service the aeroplanes of his own company? If there are such possibilities, surely the Minister will agree that there must be some case for the protection of the public over and above what is already provided for by the Clause, and I am hopeful that he will agree to some form of words which will meet the need expressed in this Amendment.

10.42 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I should like to say to the hon. Member that I think he laid too little emphasis on the desire for safety which must exist among the first three groups on this body. It is quite obvious that the constructors, the insurers and the operators of aircraft must be desirous of seeing that their machines will not crash and, especially from the point of view of insurance, making certain that the maximum degree of safety is maintained. As the hon. Member knows, the body is to consist of four groups—there are the insurers, the constructors and the operators, and a fourth group has been left open, which was a wise suggestion from the other three interests, for the appointment of members who would be men of wide experience in similar and kindred business undertakings. That is a rather wide description of that fourth group. But having listened to the hon. Member I feel there is a good deal to be said for the representation he has made to us, that if


specific provision is made for the first three classes there should be provision for the interests of the general public, or interests independent of those three groups. Therefore, if it will meet the 'hews of the hon. Member I will, before the Report stage, put down an Amendment providing for the appointment of "at least one person not being representative of the interests aforesaid."

10.43 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us who is to appoint this independent representative? Is it the three vested interests who are to nominate the independent member? If so, I put it to him that the concession will be rendered nugatory.

Sir P. SASSOON: The independent member will not, of course, be appointed by the Secretary of State, but it will be done after general discussion among all the interests concerned and the individual will have to be representative of the interests of the public. That is as far as I can go.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman meet us on this point? If there is to be a representative of a general public on the board, surely that representative should be nominated not by the vested interests concerned, but by the Secretary of State, as representing this House and the general public? We may talk about the representative of the general public being selected by the vested interests, whom we have discussed, but these powers make a farce of the whole proposal. Could not the right hon. Gentleman meet us, at least on this point, that he will insist upon the Government of the day nominating the independent public representative upon the board?

10.46 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I do not understand how this person can be described as a representative of the public if he is to be co-opted by the representatives of the three interests concerned. They may appoint some sort of tame cat who can be relied upon to turn up at the meetings and give no trouble, and if that is all that is wanted that might be satisfactory, but I do not think it would be satisfactory to

my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. Surely it is possible, in the phraseology of the Clause as it is now, that this person can be directly appointed by the Minister and can take his seat on the board as a representative of the public, owing no thanks for his position there to any of the three sections whose clash he is supposed to watch, in order to make sure that the public interests are protected? Otherwise we are getting to the kind of position foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman. We are merely increasing the number of people who are representing one or other of the interests.
We had read to us earlier by the Under-Secretary a phrase in the Gorell Committee's Report to the effect that the board were to be fully representative of all the interests concerned, but the phraseology in the Clause has been watered down from "fully representative" to "substantially representative," and "all the interests concerned" has been reproduced without the word "all." Surely the public interest is most vitally concerned in this matter, because the public are those who trust their lives to the aircraft which have been certified as airworthy by this body, and they are entitled to have upon the board a person appointed by the Minister as a suitable representative of the public, irrespective of the views of the three interests concerned. I hope that the Minister will see his way to meet the point that this independent person should be appointed independently by the Secretary of State.

10.49 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: Some hon. Members are inclined to take a different view from that which upon reflection will be seen to be right, when the Clause is looked at as a whole. We must not treat a body which will certify airworthiness, and which contains designers, operators and insurers, as a sort of body which will try to give certificates to aircraft that are not safe. If the insurer does that, he has to pay; if the operator does that, he loses his money; and if the designer does it, he, loses his reputation. A board consisting of designers, insurers and operators is not the sort of body that will give a certificate to an unsafe machine. At the same time I can understand the view that it is desirable to


have somebody who is thought to represent the passengers. It may be thought that he will know more about it than the operator or the designer.

Mr. PRITT: There is no "designer" in the Clause.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg pardon, "constructor." The words suggested were not intended to represent that this person should be added as the nominee of these other persons. If the Committee are prepared to take an assurance from me I would undertake to look at the words. I agree that you cannot get an "independent person" properly defined. The best thing would be that he should be nominated by the Secretary of State, but I would like to look at the words.

Mr. LEACH: With the assurance that the Home Secretary has given us I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, at the end, to insert:
(3) Before an Order made under this Section conies into force, it shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty days during which the House is sitting, and, if either of those Houses before the expiration of those twenty days presents an Address to His Majesty against the Order or any part thereof, no further proceeding shall be taken thereon, without prejudice to the making of any new Order.
The Bill is brought forward as a measure of devolution for the aircraft industry in respect of the matters contained in this Clause. There is far too much devolution in this Bill, far too much in the nature of Orders in Council, but at this time of night, and especially in view of the fact that the point has been gone over considerably during the previous discussion, I will not develop it any further, as I understand that the Government have a modification to propose and we would like to know what it is.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is the intention of the Government to accept this Amendment in principle. I do not commit myself to the particular words, but we desire to make no reservation in the form of our acceptance. Our intention is that Parliament should have full opportunity in this matter, and we will put down before the Report stage

an Amendment which will have the same effect.

Mr. MONTAGUE: That is satisfactory to us, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.54 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: At this time of night, and in view of other discussions which we hope will take place within the next hour, I do not propose to go elaborately over the discussions which have occupied the time of the Committee for two hours or more. But before this Clause leaves the Committee we desire not only to vote on it, but to state briefly why it is that we cannot accept it. Once again we object in toto to the Secretary of State devolving from himself, and from the elected representatives of the people, the power to control this great new service and handing over the control to representatives of vested interest, who are already, so we have been informed, more or less appointed. We object in principle to State subsidies being handed over to private groups, and to the Secretary of State divesting himself of all responsibility for the nomination of the personnel of the groups who are to control the industry. For these reasons we desire to record our votes in the Division Lobby against the Clause.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: The idea in setting up this board appears to be to include every section of the industry, but the word "constructors" is very misleading. Men who cannot construct call themselves constructors because they employ constructors. The disaster to the R.101 would not have occurred if the men who did the construction work had been consulted. I would make this last appeal that, in dealing with constructors, that term should not be allowed to become a name used by commercial bone-heads with money, but should mean men who know the science of construction, and who, by their knowledge, are qualified to give guidance.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 252; Noes, 103.

Division No. 202]
AYES.
[10.59 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon: Sir F. Dyke
Fildes, Sir H.
Muirhead, Lt-Col. A. J.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Findlay, Sir E.
Munro, P.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leads, W.)
Fleming, E. L.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. P. G.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Allen, Lt. Col.J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fremantle, Sir F, E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Furness, S. N.
Owen, Major G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Assheton, R.
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Peake, O.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Petherick, M.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gibson, C. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gledhill, G.
Pilkington. R.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Pertsm'h)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Rathbone. S. R. (Bodmin)


Belt, Sir A. L.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blindell, Sir J.
Grimston. R. V.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reid, W. Allen (Derby)


Bossom, A. C.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Remer, J. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gunston. Capt. D. W.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guy, J. C. M.
Rowlands, G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hamilton, Sir G, C.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Bull, B. B.
Hannah, I. C.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Burghley, Lord
Harris, Sir P. A.
Salmon, Sir I.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Harvey, G.
Salt, E. W


Burton, Col. H. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Sandys, E. D.


Cary, R. A.
Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel A. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Scott, Lord William


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Selley, H. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Channon, H.
Holdsworth, H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Holmes. J. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Christie. J. A.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Simmonds, O. E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hulbert, N. J.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hunter, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
James, Wing-commander A. W.
Smithers. Sir W.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Joel, D. J. B.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Keeling, E. H.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Kerr, H W. (Oldham)
Spens, W. P.


Craven- Ellis, W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Critchley, A.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Stourton. Major Hon. J. J.


Crooke. J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Latham, Sir P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Crossley, A. C.
Leckie, J. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sutcliffe. H.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Llewellin, Lieut. -Col. J. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Davies. C. (Montgomery)
Loftus, P. C.
Tate. Mavis C.


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Touche. G C.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Tree, A. H. L. F.


De Chair, S. S.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Tufnell. Lieut. -Com. R. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Turton, R H.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wakefield, W. W.


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Macmillan. H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Warrender Sir V.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Maitland, A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duggan, H. J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mander, G. le M.
Wells, S. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
White, H. Graham


Dunne, P. R. R.
Markham, S. F.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Eckersley, P. T.
Maxwell, S. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Elliot. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Wilson. Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ellis, Sir G.
Mellon, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel G.


Emery, J. F.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morgan, R. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Wragg H.


Errington, E.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J H.



Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Everard, W. L.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Sir George Penny and Lieut. -Colonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.







NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemaworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Naylor, T. E.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Oliver, G. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardle, G. D.
Paling, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parker, H. J. H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Potts, J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.


Bellenger, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D. N.


Benson, G.
Holland, A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Broad, F. A.
Hollins, A.
Rlley, B.


Buchanan, G.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Burke, W. A.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Chater, D,
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Compton, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Leach, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Logan, D, G.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Glbbins, J
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marklew, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.



Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Whiteley.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Information as to air transport undertakings and use of Customs aerodromes.)

11.7 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, at the end, to insert:
Provided further that any information supplied to the authorities in pursuance of this Section or of any order made there under shall not without the consent of the person giving the same be revealed or disclosed by or on behalf of the aforesaid authorities to any other person or department.
The Committee will see that the Clause deals with the right of the Air Ministry by Order in Council to call for a return of all those who operate aircraft for hire or reward, and the Amendment seeks to ensure that that information, when it is given, shall not be divulged to any other competitor. It must be realised that the Government are associated with a very large company and directly financially interested in it, and it seems to be reasonable, in view of that fact, to ensure that all information given by the smaller companies under the Order in Council should be confined to the Air Ministry, and not handed over to any other Department or to any other firm.

Sir P. SASSOON: The object of this provision is solely to acquire information which is necessary for civil aviation. In most cases these statistics are given to us voluntarily, and I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no intention that this should be a system of prying or any inquisition into the business affairs of others. If my hon. Friend wishes it, I am willing to accept an Amendment to the extent that we will agree not to reveal or bestow any information with regard to a particular company without its consent.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. CROOM-JOHNSON: I hope that the Government will consider this matter a little more fully. There is in a number of Statutes a somewhat similar provision, and there has recently been a argument in the courts as to what the effect of this provision is. A very curious situation has arisen. As the decisions in the court stand at the moment, namely, that although an individual may not be permitted to divulge information which has been given pursuant to a Clause of this nature, nevertheless, by the simple expedient of issuing a plaint in the county court or a writ in the High Court, you can thereupon, after pretending or saying that you have a matter of dispute with


some person, who is an opposite member, so to speak, in the particular industry, serve a subpoena on an officer of the organisation concerned, and that officer of the organisation is compelled, on the subpoena, to produce the return which has been made under the Act of Parliament in question. I say no more about it, because I understand that the matter is going to be considered in another court. The only reason for my intervention is that the Government shall give further consideration to the form of words which is to be put into a Clause of this sort in order to make perfectly certain that by such procedure as I have explained publicity may not be given to matters which are, I understand, intended to be of a confidential character. I hope the Government will give further consideration to the matter.

11.11 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's promise, it is that this information will not be disclosed by the Air Ministry to anyone without the consent of the company providing the information. That does not seem to make sense, in accordance with this Clause, because the Clause gives His Majesty, by Order in Council, power to require a person to furnish all such authorities as may be specified in the Order—not to furnish to the Air Ministry —such matters as are material. It is clear that one of the important reasons for doing this is in order to get matters disclosed to the Customs Department, if necessary. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman has said—whether he meant it or not I do not know—is to bind the Air Ministry not to disclose to the Customs Department material which is wanted for the Customs Department. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say something a little more accurate and precise on a matter of very considerable importance. The Bill itself is bad enough, but if it is to be amplified by loose statement from the Treasury Bench, we should be in a far worse position than we are under the Bill as it is. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he does mean? Does he mean that these statements will be utilised by all such Government Departments as may require them but will not be disclosed to competing firms, which is a sensible thin, to do, or does he mean that the

Air Ministry will not disclose the information to any other Department, which is what is asked for in the Amendment, which seems a very stupid thing to do? If he will tell us which of these two things he means, he will assist the Committee.

Sir P. SASSOON: This is information which the company may not wish to be given to a competing firm. We will, between now and the Report stage, consider the mattes very carefully, and see if a form of words can be drafted to meet the point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 39, after "to," to insert:
insurance against risks to passengers and goods and as to.
This Amendment raises a matter of considerable magnitude. The Government are bound by the Warsaw Convention by which international flying involves the operating company in liability for the lives of its passengers; the operating company is bound to find compensation to the relatives of a passenger killed in an accident up to 125,000 francs maximum. That, in our money, is £1,750. If a passenger loses his life in Imperial Airways flying internationally, that is flying outside Great Britain, and compensation must be paid to the extent of 1,750, but if the passenger loses his life inside Great Britain there is no such obligation upon Imperial Airways, or on any other company which receives a subsidy from the Government to provide for insurance against accident. If a passenger loses his life in an Imperial Airways machine crossing the Channel outside the three-mile limit, compensation is payable if the passenger loses his life over the soil of Great Britain or within the three-mile limit there need be no compensation. I am not saying that firms like Imperial Airways do not voluntarily accept liability for insuring their passengers, I believe they do, but there are at least 10 per rent, of the companies operating over Great Britain who have not seen fit to take out an insurance covering their passengers and goods when flying over British soil in case of accident. When a former Secretary of State for Air


lost his life when flying over France, no compensation was payable because the aircraft company was not insured against accidents.
I understand that the objection of the Government to insisting upon all aircraft companies insuring their passengers against accident when flying over British soil is that the cost is so heavy as to make all the difference to the operating company between making a loss or a profit. That is an extraordinary argument for a British Government or a British aircraft company to use. If a passenger goes up in an aeroplane in this country, if an accident occurs and if the company is not insured, then, as the Bill now stands, there may be no compensation payable to the relatives of the deceased person. We on this side suggest that when the Government are giving huge subsidies to all sorts of people in this industry and when compensation is payable compulsorily to everybody except passengers, it ought to be made obligatory for the Secretary of State, when he is issuing licences, to see that every operating company must do what we believe Imperial Airways have already done, that is, insure all their passengers against accident, whether they are flying over British soil or internationally.
I repeat that we are bound by the Warsaw Convention so far as international flying is concerned, and the same ought to apply in the case of flying over British soil, and it is to secure that the Secretary of State will fill up this extraordinary omission in the Bill and make it obligatory on every operating company to insure its passengers at least for the sum of £1,750, for which they would be insured if flying across European soil, that we move this Amendment. It would be an extraordinary state of affairs, if in the early stages of the operation of this Bill, there were an accident on British soil, if persons lost their lives and no compensation was payable. It is in order to avoid that that we move this Amendment.

11.23 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for explaining so clearly what he had in mind in moving this Amendment, and I do not dispute that he has raised an important point.

I have made inquiries before speaking in an endeavour to prepare myself, for this is a difficult question, and I confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I had not fully appreciated that he was moving the Amendment in view of the position created by the Warsaw Convention. But unless I am wholly misinformed, which is always possible, the Warsaw Convention does not contain a provision for insurance at all. As I understand it, there is a provision that, in respect of international flying, there shall be accepted by the companies liability up to a maximum.

Mr. JOHINSTON: Unless there is negligence.

Sir J. SIMON: My point is that I do not think the Warsaw Convention is a Convention which provides that an air transport company shall insure itself so as to be able to pay what it may be liable to pay to an injured person. It is a Convention, I think—I will, of course, look into it carefully before we come to the next stage—which provides that, apart from negligence, as the right hon. Gentleman says, there shall be a certain statutory limit as to the amount of compensation which shall be paid. Therefore, the Committee will see that, as far as the Warsaw Convention is brought into the matter, there is not a provision which has anything to do with the air transport companies insuring—

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries as to whether or not it is the fact that all these companies—Imperial Airways for one—are insuring in so far as international flying is concerned and that Imperial Airways are insuring also in so far as home flying is concerned 1 It is simply to cover the 10 per cent. who are not insuring, as regards home flying, that I move the Amendment.

Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I stick to the point with which I began. I now have the Warsaw Convention before me and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General tells me that it does not provide that any transport company shall take out an insurance policy about anything. Therefore, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman was putting the argument that he wanted, by this Amendment, to secure inside this island what the Warsaw Convention secures inter-


nationally, I think there was some mistake. I understand his point as he has now explained it, but, if the Committee examines the Clause, they will see that it deals with a different subject-matter from that with which the right hon. Gentleman was dealing. Describing it generally, but I think accurately, I would say that the object of the Clause is to provide, by a system of licensing, for the prevention of undesirable competition on particular routes and at the same time to ensure that, while the licensees are favoured to 'that extent, there should be no unfair raising of fares and charges. If you simply say to a company, "We give you the sole licence to operate this route" and stop there, that company, in the absence of anything to prevent them from doing so, might be tempted to make their fares and charges excessive. Therefore, the Clause says that the Order in Council shall make provision to secure that aircraft shall not he used in the United Kingdom for carrying passengers or goods for hire or reward except under the authority of a licence and paragraph (d), to which the right hon. Gentleman suggests this addition, says that the Order in Council shall also make provision:
as to the conditions which may be attached to such a licence (including conditions as to the fares, freight or other charges to be charged by the holder of the licence),
The reason why the two things are tied together in the Clause is to provide in a practical way for a system of licensing air transport along particular routes, instead of having rival concerns running along it, and at the same time to secure that the licensed company shall not overcharge. Whatever be the value of the right hon. Gentleman's point, it is out of place in this connection. From my own recollection and experience—I am a little rusty and it may be out of date in these matters now—I do not recall any case in our law in which a public transport enterprise of any sort, whether rail or road, is bound by law to enter into what may be called third-party insurance.

HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What about the Road Traffic Act?

Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps I have not put it quite correctly. I do not recollect

any instance of a provision corresponding to this imposed by the law in a corresponding case, but I am willing to have that matter examined and considered. It is clear, however, that the proposal of the Amendment should not come into this Clause, which defines the Order in Council under which the licences are to be given and the conditions which are necessary, if you are giving what is really a monopoly to the licence holder. We had some difficulty in understanding at first what was the purpose of the Amendment. I am satisfied that it could not properly come in here, and if he will allow me and those who are with me to look at the Warsaw Convention, I shall be glad to see whether there is anything there which it is proper to consider, but my present conviction is that the Clause as it stands is right, and I do not think this addition to the Bill would be proper.

Mr. JOHNST0N: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee whether he and the Government accept in principle the argument that no company should be allowed to carry passengers for fare and profit unless it has made adequate provision, by insurance or otherwise, for the due compensation of the passengers should an accident take place?

Sir J. SIMON: I should like, on every ground, to facilitate our proceedings, but I am sorry that I cannot agree to do that across the Table. The proposition which I did not quite accurately state I should like to state now more accurately. It is this: I do not think there is any precedent in our law under which a transport company, by the contract to carry a person, is compelled at the same time to insure against the liability of having to compensate that person in the event of an accident. No railway company is bound by our law to enter into any system of insurance to compensate any one of us if we are being carried contractually by the company, and the same observation applies to any other form of transport undertaking. It would be an entirely novel provision ii our law. Insurance against third party risks is one in regard to people who have made no contract at all, and, so far as that is concerned, there is Part III of the Bill. Therefore, I am sorry that I could not undertake to accept this principle. I shall be very glad to have it examined, but I believe I am


right in saying that up to the present there is no precedent whatever in our law or practice for putting upon any transport company the obligation to insure against the possibility of having to compensate somebody who has contracted with that company to be carried. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not, therefore, think it reasonable that I should give an assurance of that sort at this time of the night.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are companies operating now with a capital of £100? Does he think it is in the public interest that any company should be permitted—I am not talking about the 90 per cent. which voluntarily accept the provision—to get a licence to fly and to carry passengers unless it is prepared to make due provision for the compensation of the relatives of those passengers should an accident unfortunately occur? I am not seeking to bind down the right hon. Gentleman to the form of words or anything else, but I am speaking in the public interest, before it is too late to present a grotesque injustice, something from which I am sure the Government and every section of this House would recoil. I am only asking the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to say, before it is too late, that they accept in principle the argument that no licence should be granted unless the Government of the day is absolutely satisfied that, by insurance or otherwise, a company is able to meet its obligations to the relatives of persons who suffer through accident while being transported by that company. I do not see what the difficulty is in the way of the Government accepting that principle. If the Government will accept that, I am sure it will meet with the approval and good will of the whole Committee.

11.35 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point entirely plain, but I am sure he appreciates that there is also some force in the observation that I have made, namely, that this would be an entirely new departure in our law. There are £100 companies, for all I know, running buses and all sorts of things, and we must really proceed with due caution about this matter. I will gladly

look into it and, if necessary, consult the right hon. Gentleman, but I really cannot give an assurance now further than that. I must consult our legal advisers and others.

Earl WINTERTON: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to ask a question following what the right hon. Gentleman has said Even if there is no precedent for the Amendment, there is no precedent on all fours with this form of transport. If my right hon. Friend thinks that it is undesirable as a general rule to insist that where a company, whether in the air or on the ground, carries passengers it should be compelled to insure, will he not adopt the alternative system of ensuring that the financial stability of the company is guaranteed so that the unfortunate passengers who may be injured will be able to obtain compensation?

Sir J. SIMON: If my Noble Friend feels that all forms of transport ought to be insured against accidents to passengers, he ought not to take a journey. He had better not take a ride in a taxicab, for there is no provision in law by which the taxi-driver has to insure against the damages which my Noble Friend may incur. He had better never go in a steamer or any form of public transport. I am willing to consider whether there is anything specially different about this case, but I must ask the Committee not to push too hard what certainly is a wholly new departure in the law which is not very easy to deduce from this Amendment.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is an argument that we should carefully examine into various forms of public conveyance to see whether they ought to be insured, rather than an argument against the Amendment. This Committee is, in regard to its own proceedings, rather prone to follow precedents, but this is the first time I have heard it suggested that in our dealings with outside persons and bodies they also should be dealt with according to precedent. We are making precedents every day. Our business is to make them. There will be no progress unless we continually make precedents, and the mere fact that there is no precedent for the compulsory insurance of passengers in present forms of transport is not a


reason for saying that we should not make a precedent now with regard to air transport. Having made that precedent, I hope that sooner or later we shall extend it to other forms of transport. With regard to railways, one does not suggest that they should insure because they have adequate capital. My right hon. Friend has suggested as an alternative to an insurance policy some guarantee of financial stability, so that in the event of an accident the passengers should not be entirely deprived of compensation on account of the financial position of the company.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I hope the Home Secretary will give this matter further consideration. I should like to see the Amendment inserted, in order to ensure that the point will be dealt with. The Home Secretary has said that there is no precedent, and that it is too much to ask him to adopt this course at this hour of the night. I would point out to him that in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, full liability was put on any company running public vehicles for the conveyance of passengers. I admit that no obligation to take out at insurance was put on the company, and that is probably one of the weaknesses of that Act; but it was on account of the large number of accidents caused by ordinary motorists that the Government introduced compulsory third-party insurance in their case. People running motor cars were endangering the lives of the public, and if after an accident heavy damages were given against them they had in some cases no resources out of which to meet the damages. Consequently, Parliament set the precedent of enacting that before they were allowed to run their cars they must insure against third-party risks. It is only carrying that decision to its logical conclusion to say that concerns which are to carry passengers must be

in a position to pay adequate compensation to them in case of accident. Surely that is common sense, and I cannot understand the hesitation of the right hon. Gentleman to go further than he has gone. Let us join the precedent which Parliament created in the matter of third-party insurance to the precedent created under the Road Traffic Act of 1930 in putting full liability on the owners of public vehicles, and grant what is being asked for in this Amendment. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, even if after consideration they decide that the object can be better achieved in some other way on the Report stage: but let us put something definite into the Bill now.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. ASSHETON: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It seems ridiculous at this stage of the Bill and at this hour to import a completely new principle into our law. It is possible to ride on switchbacks, merry-go-rounds and all sorts of dangerous things. If you are to apply this principle to travel in aeroplanes, it is only right that you should consider the question at large and not try to make a patchwork thing like this. I do not think this Amendment should be accepted.

11.46 p.m.

Sir ROBERT ASKE: There is very little substance in this Amendment. If an intending passenger wishes to insure, he can take out his own insurance, either for a large or a very small amount. The roadway companies are not open to insure, but whenever one goes to a railway station one can take out an insurance upon the journey for a very small sum indeed. There is no difficulty whatever in a passenger insuring.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 200.

Division No. 203.]
AYES.
[11.47 p.m.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Burke, W. A.
Ede, J. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Cape, T.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Charleton, H. C.
Evans. D. O. (Cardigan)


Ammon, C. G.
Cluse, W. S.
Fletcher, U.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cocks, F. S.
Garro Jones, G. M.


Barnes, A. J.
Compton, J.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Barr, J.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Glbbins, J.


Benson, G.
Daggar, G.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)


Broad, F. A.
Dalton, H.
Greer, W. H. (Deptford)


Brooke, W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Greenwood. Rt. Hon. A.


Buchanan, G.
Day, H.
Grenfell, D. R.




Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McGhee, H. G.
Sexton, T. M.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
MacLaren, A,
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maclean, N.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marklew, E.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Hardle, G. D.
Messer, F.
Sorensen, R. W,


Harris, Sir P. A.
Mliner, Major J.
Stephen, C.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Montague, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Muff, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Holdsworth, H.
Oliver, G. H.
Thurtle, E.


Hollins, A.
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Hopkin, D.
Parker, H. J. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Jagger, J.
Potts, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Price, M. P.
White, H. Graham


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rlley, B.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ritson, J.
Woods, G. S. (Flnsbury)


Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Logan, D. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)



Lunn, W.
Rowson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Whiteley.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Dunglass, Lord
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dunne, P. R. R.
McCorquodale, M, S.


Agnew, Lieut. -Comdr. P. G.
Eckersley, P. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McKie, J. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Emery, J. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Maitland, A.


Assheton, R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson. Capt. Rt Hon. H. D. R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Errington, E.
Markham, S. F.


Atholl, Duchess of
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Maxwell, S. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Everard, W. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Balfour. Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fildes, Sir H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mltcham)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Findlay, Sir E.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Fleming, E. L.
Morgan, R. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Bernays, R. H.
Furness, S. N.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Blinded, Sir J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gibson, C. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Bossom. A. C.
Gledhill. G.
Munro, P.


Boulton, W. W.
Goodman, Col. A. W,
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewlng, I. L.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Penny, Sir G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Grimston. R. V.
Petherlck, M.


Bull, B. B.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Plckthorn, K. W. M.


Burghley, Lord
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Pilkington, R.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Gary, R. A.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guy, J. C. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hannah, I. C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Channon, H.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rowlands, G.


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, Captain S. (Abbey)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salt, E. W.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Courthope, Col Sir G. L.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hulbert, N. J.
Scott, Lord William


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Crooke, J. S,
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Groom-Johnson, R. P.
Joel, D. J. B.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Keeling, E. H.
Simmonds, O, E,


Culverwell, C. T.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st),


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Lamb, Sir J. O.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Oavies, Major G. F. (Yeovll)
Latham, Sir P.
Smithers. Sir W.


De Chair, S. S.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Oorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Leckle, J. A.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Drewe, C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Spens, W. p.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lennox- Boyd, A. T. L.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lindsay. K. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duggan, H. J.
Loftus, P. C.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lyons, A. M.
Tate, Mavis C.







Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Warrender, Sir V.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Touche, G. C.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Tufnell, Lieut. Com. R, L.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wragg, H.


Turton, R. H.
Wells, S. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Particle)


Wakefield, W. W.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.



Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Lieut.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Mr. James Stuart and Lieut.-


Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Colonel Llewellin.


Resolution reported,
That for the purpose of any Act of the present Session (hereafter referred to as "the said Act") to provide for the vesting in the Commissioners of Works of certain Crown Lands in Westminster as a site for public offices and police offices, to amend the law with respect to other Crown Lands, to amend the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1927, and the Public Offices (Sites) Act 1912, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of all expenses incurred by the Commisisoners of Works under such of the provisions of the said Act as relate to the said Crown Lands in Westminster and to the amendment of the Public Offices (Sites) Act, 1912, so far as provision is not otherwise made for those expenses;
(b) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of the sums to be paid to the Commissioners of Crown Lands by the Commissioners of Works under the said. Act in respect of the said Crown Lands in Westminster, if and to the extent that the moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Commissioners of Works are insufficient for the payment of those sums;
(c) to amend the provisions of section three of the Public Offices (Sites) Act, 1912, relating to the ascertainment of the amount of the consideration payable to His Majesty for the northern lands and the rate of interest payable thereon;
(d) in the event of the hereditary revenues which are by Section one of the Civil List Act, 1910, directed to be carried to and made part of the Consolidated Fund ceasing to be carried to and made part of that Fund at any time before the payment to the Commissioners of Crown Lands of the capital sum payable out of the Forestry Fund by virtue of any Order in Council made under the said Act transferring to the Forestry Commissioners land purchased by the Commissioners of Crown Lands to authorise—



(i) the payment forthwith out of the Consolidated Fund to the Commissioners of Crown Lands of a sum equal to the said capital sum; and
(ii) the payment of the said capital sum, and any annual sums payable out of the Forestry Fund by virtue of the Order, into the Exchequer instead of to the Commissioners of Crown Lands."




Resolution agreed to.

Mr. EVERARD: I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, to leave out paragraph (f).
Clause 5 deals with the licensing of air transport and commercial flying undertakings, and paragraph (f)enables fees to be charged for the licensing of these undertakings. Some apprehension is expressed that the fee may be a heavy one which would be unfair on a small, newly-formed company as compared with larger concerns which are better off financially. We should like to see these fees done away with altogether, or, if that be not possible, we should like to see the scale of fees set out in the Bill itself, in order that companies desiring to get a licence may be fully aware of what the fee is likely to be.

11.56 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: To leave out paragraph (f) would make it impossible to charge a fee for any licence. A fee has to be paid for a ground engineer's licence, or for a pilot's licence, or for an aerodrome licence, and it would not be logical that an air transport service should not pay any licence fee at all. When the time comes, the scale of fees for these licences will be settled.

Mr. EVERARD: Could my right hon. Friend give some undertaking that the fee will be a reasonable one, that it will not be large in amount, and that it will be the same for all types of commercial flying concerns?

Mr. LYONS: May I ask the. Under-Secretary on what basis these fees will be fixed, what the amounts will be, and in what circumstances they will be charged?

Sir P. SASSOON: All those matters will be matters for consideration. I cannot say now how they will be dealt with, but when the time comes they will be borne in mind.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 6.—(Detertion of aircraft.)

11.59 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out from "Section" to the end of the Clause, and to add:
12a. Any Order in Council, order, or regulations made, under this Act in relation to aircraft may provide for the detention of aircraft to secure compliance with the Order in Council, order, or regulations, as the case may be, or with any provisions of this Act in connection with which the Order in Council, order, or regulations is or are made, and, in the case of any Order in Council under Part I of this Act, provide for the detention of aircraft to prevent aircraft flying when unfit to fly, and may make such further provision as appears to His Majesty in Council or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, to be necessary or expedient for securing such detention.
Clause 6 simply makes more convenient provision for the use of powers which already exist under the Act of 1920; it does not add to the substantive effect of those powers. The addition that we propose in this Amendment is in substitution of Section 14 (3) of the Act of 1920, which is included in the Sixth Schedule to this Bill among the enactments to be repealed. Section 14 (3) of the Act of 1920 applies Section 692 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to the detention of aircraft under the Air Navigation Act. Obviously that procedure is not a very suitable one, and it is thought desirable to substitute the provision on the Order Paper.

Mr. GARRO JONES: There is a brief point on which I should like smile information. I am not very hopeful of getting it, but I am going to ask for it. His Majesty by Order in Council is given power to provide for the detention of aircraft and the power to secure such detention. What is the distinction between the two, and whit is the reason for making it?

Mr. EDE: We have the benefit of at least three distil guished counsel—the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General—and there may be one or two more knocking about in odd corners of the Treasury Bench.


Surely we are to get an answer to the point so clearly put by my hon. Friend, apparently in great friendliness to the Government, in his endeavour to clarify the Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is simply that we are seeking to provide for securing the detention as well as making regulations to provide for the detention. The detention is both to be provided and to be secured. I agree that the Amendment looks formidable, but actually it is no more than drafting. It adds no powers that do not exist at present, but only makes them more convenient to use. A learned judge provides for the detention and a policeman secures it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of s. 17 of principal Act.)

Ordered,
That the Chairman do report progress; and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TITHE [MONEY].

CROWN LANDS [MONEY].

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven Minute, after Twelve o'Clock.